Part 1 covered how the federal agencies are resolving matters. This part covers what they and private plaintiffs are actually alleging, and who else is in the game. The through-line is that the most active civil theories do not require a smoke-filled room. They rest on shared data, contract terms, and market structure.

1. Information Exchange and Algorithmic Pricing

This is the theory with the most momentum. The pattern is a third party, often a software or data vendor, collects competitors’ nonpublic data and returns pricing recommendations or benchmarks. The question is whether that arrangement is evidence of an agreement among the competitors.

• Third Circuit. On July 29, 2026, in Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, the court reversed the dismissal of a class action about Atlantic City casino-hotel room rates, finding agreement plausibly alleged based on the exchange of current nonpublic pricing and occupancy data, awareness that rivals were doing the same, a high rate of following the recommendations, and pricing contrary to independent interest. As Daniel Glad noted in his September speech, the court applied the old rule that a price can be fixed even if participants do not follow it every time.
• Ninth Circuit. Gibson v. Cendyn (August 2025) affirmed dismissal of a similar Las Vegas case. The split in outcome turns on the specific allegations. Courts are looking at what data goes in, who knows what, and whether recommendations are followed.
• Government decrees. The RealPage consent judgment limits data to historical information aged at least twelve months, restricts granular reporting, and requires a monitor. Landlord decrees followed, most recently Pinnacle (September 2026), which would bar algorithms that use other landlords’ competitively sensitive data.
• Agri Stats and eggs. The meat processors’ shared reports and an egg-price benchmark show the theory working outside software: any recurring mechanism that pools competitor data or influences a benchmark is exposed.

The practical test: if a tool needs competitors’ confidential data to work, and users know it, expect to be asked why that is not coordination.

2. Alleged Coordination in AI Development

On September 18, 2026, subscribers filed a proposed class action against several leading AI developers, alleging an agreement to slow AI development, citing a public call by one CEO for “coordinated pacing.” These are allegations only, and the plaintiffs acknowledge safety risks. But the case highlights a new boundary question: when is collaboration on safety lawful, and when does it look like an agreement to limit output or innovation? Any industry-wide safety, standards, or “pacing” discussion needs antitrust counsel in the room.

3. Contract Terms and Dominant-Firm Conduct

• Healthcare contracting. The OhioHealth matter targeted contract restrictions that kept insurers from offering new plan designs. Terms such as anti-steering, all-or-nothing, and tiering restrictions deserve review.
• Loyalty rebates. The FTC’s proposed 10-year settlement with Corteva (September 2026) bars conditioning rebates on distributors buying more than half their needs from the company or capping generic purchases, and includes $35 million for partner states. The case against the other defendant, Syngenta, continues.
• Big tech. The Apple and Visa monopolization cases continue, and the Google search appeal and ad-tech remedies follow the conduct-remedy path described in Part 1.
• Price discrimination. The FTC’s October 2026 consent decree with Southern Glazer’s, its first Robinson-Patman enforcement in a generation, targets “paired” sales of identical products at higher prices to independents than to nearby chains, with a six-year monitor. Companies with chain/independent pricing and rebate programs should confirm that cost justifications exist.
• Exit-and-exclusivity deals. The Zillow–Redfin settlement (August 2026) addresses a $100 million payment alleged to induce a rival’s exit from multifamily rental listings, with market re-entry required within six months.

4. Labor Markets

The Division’s agricultural wage-sharing decrees have been extended to a fourth poultry processor, with litigation against two others for violations. It also reached resolutions with the NCAA on transfer eligibility and Activision Blizzard on esports compensation rules, and it won a criminal verdict for wage fixing of home-health nurses in Las Vegas. Treat wage and hiring coordination, including benchmarking surveys and no-poach terms, as a live area.

5. Mergers: Federal Settlements, State Challenges

When the federal agencies clear or settle, states may not. Twelve state attorneys general sued to challenge Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery a month after DOJ cleared it, and settled on September 21 for output and investment commitments (including a minimum number of film releases and U.S. production spending), separate cable carriage negotiations, a monitor, and a divestiture trigger for missed targets. The court approved the decree on September 30 and the deal closed October 6. A deal that clears Washington is not clear.

6. States as Independent Actors

• California. AB 1776, signed September 30, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, authorizes public enforcers to challenge single-firm monopolization and monopsonization under the Cartwright Act. AB 325, effective January 1, 2026, restricts use or distribution of a common pricing algorithm as part of an unlawful agreement and changes the pleading standard for Cartwright conspiracy claims. SB 25 will require certain federal premerger filings made on or after January 1, 2027 to be copied to the California attorney general. (These descriptions follow a Goodwin summary of the legislation.)
• Manhattan DA. On October 14, 2026, the Manhattan District Attorney launched a Corporate Crime and Antitrust Task Force, a sign that state criminal antitrust enforcement is expanding.

7. Private Litigation

Private plaintiffs ride on government cases and bring their own. In the Google ad-tech multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of New York, the court denied Google’s summary judgment motion against the publisher class and set trial for April 5, 2027. In the ad-tech remedies decision, the court even pointed to pending private suits as an extra incentive for Google to comply. On the other hand, a Northern District of California judge dismissed a consumer class action about Google’s default search agreements for failure to show antitrust injury. The lesson: private plaintiffs benefit from government findings but still must prove injury and causation.

Key Trends in One Paragraph

Civil enforcement now looks for agreement in data flows and for exclusion in contract terms; it prefers negotiated, often behavioral, remedies; it is concentrated on household-cost sectors; and it is no longer solely federal. State legislatures, state attorneys general, and local prosecutors are expanding their own tools, and private class actions follow every government move.