Antitrust Litigation

Combining courtroom savvy with substantive knowledge of antitrust law, Ropes & Gray’s experienced antitrust litigators successfully defend and assert our clients’ antitrust cases before state and federal courts.


Led by our skilled trial lawyers, our antitrust litigation group combines the trial skills, practical experience, and exhaustive antitrust acumen required to prevail in any type of antitrust dispute.

Clients across industries rely on us to litigate the full range of antitrust matters. We handle state and federal antitrust litigation, class actions, arbitrations, appeals, and complex multi-district litigation. Working seamlessly with our award-winning IP litigators, we often represent clients in patent/antitrust disputes. When the goal is prompt termination of litigation, we devise creative solutions that meet our clients’ needs.

We regularly litigate a wide variety of antitrust matters, both for plaintiffs and defendants, including, among others, claims involving:

  • Monopolization
  • Price fixing conspiracies
  • Non-compete agreements and group boycotts
  • Franchisor/franchisees disputes
  • Exclusive dealing and tying 
  • Unfair competition 
  • Intellectual property/antitrust disputes 
  • Interlocking directorates 
  • Joint ventures and merger transactions

We litigate matters arising both in private disputes and from government investigations and often represent clients in state and federal antitrust investigations. Clients rely on us to coordinate multi-jurisdictional antitrust disputes that can involve litigation and investigations in numerous forums in the U.S. and worldwide. 


Ropes & Gray has a proven track record of successfully representing clients in antitrust cases, including:

  • Google in the United States v. Google (D.D.C.) monopolization suit. The United States v. Google litigation earned Ropes & Gray recognition for “Behavioral Matter of the Year” in 2022 by Global Competition Review.
  • Investment firm in an ESG-related antitrust and consumer protection investigation launched by state attorney general’s office.
  • Johns Hopkins University in a class action antitrust lawsuit.
  • Cablevision against unlawful tying and monopolization claims in connection with cable set-top boxes.
  • Third party Charter Communications in connection with the States’ suit to block T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint and United States v. AT&T Corp.
  • Eversource in connection with a class action suit alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws resulting in $3.6 billion overpayment of electricity costs by New England consumers.
  • Major pharmaceutical company in connection with sham litigation allegations.
  • Multinational biotechnology company in a suit alleging antitrust claims and common law claims arising out of the termination of a distribution agreement.
  • Major pharmaceutical company and former employees in responding to third-party subpoenas issued by the defendant in an antitrust action involving allegations of fraud-on-the-PTO and sham litigation.
  • Metlac in defense of the Competition Commission’s decision to prohibit AkzoNobel’s acquisition of Metlac.
  • A health care technology company in response to a grand jury subpoena issued by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice related to the manufacturing, marketing, pricing and sale of certain products.
  • Hitachi-LG Data Storage, in multi-district litigation alleging direct and indirect purchaser price fixing of optical disk drive products.
  • Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings and Polar Air Cargo LLC, winning dismissal of claims in a multi-district antitrust litigation alleging market manipulation and claiming that our clients’ international pricing practices violated U.S., state, and European Union antitrust laws.
  •  Boots plc in relation to Celesio’s appeal of the OFT’s decision in Boots/Alliance Unichem in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
  • TravelCenters of America in an action alleging a horizontal and vertical group boycott in connection with the provision of fuel card services to trucking companies.
  • Salt Lake Regional Medical Center, Steward Healthcare (as successor to IASIS Healthcare Corporation) and othersin a multi-defendant class action litigation alleging a conspiracy to set prices paid for temporary nursing services.
  • Lloyd’s of London in multiple antitrust class actions alleging that contingent commission arrangements among insurers and brokers unlawfully allocated customers.
  • Bain Capital in an antitrust class action alleging unlawful conspiracy among private equity firms in bidding for targets.
The team assists clients with a range of antitrust work, including transactional, counseling, and litigation.
Chambers USA