Antitrust Class Action Review – 2025

court granted plaintiffs’ motion. First, the court stated that the class of 244 members was sufficiently numerous and that the class definition was based on objective criteria ( e.g., CDK’s and Reynolds’ data), making the class easily ascertainable. The court also determined that there were common questions of law or fact, such as whether the defendants conspired to control the data integration market. Regarding the commonality and typicality requirements, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were common across the members, arose from the same events, and involved the same alleged conspiracy. The court focused on the evidence of common antitrust injury throughout the class, including increased prices for DIS services at CDK and Reynolds, costs associated with forced switching to CDK and Reynolds and away from preferred DIS providers, the elimination of the option to switch away from CDK and Reynolds to a preferred DIS option, removal of the upward quality pressure on CDK’s and Reynolds’s DIS offerings that is generated by market competition, and the exclusion of outside options to use in negotiations with CDK and Reynolds. Dr. Mark Israel, an expert for AutoLoop, provided economic models to demonstrate that the alleged conspiracy led to increased DIS prices. CDK challenged several aspects of the expert methodology, but the court ruled that the models were admissible. Based on these findings, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 2. Class Certification Rulings In Other Antitrust Cases Several important antitrust lawsuits in 2024 went to decision on class certification, including many in the pharmaceutical industry, in which plaintiffs experienced various degrees of success. The simplicity of the alleged mechanism of harm was a key feature in whether the class was certified, with ascertainability being the key Rule 23 requirement. For example, in In Re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101271 (D.N.J. June 6, 2024), the plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Ranbaxy Inc. and its affiliates engaged in a reverse payment settlement with Pfizer Inc. and its associated companies. Plaintiffs assert that this reverse payment settlement delayed the entry of a generic version of Lipitor, causing consumers and third-party payors to pay inflated prices for the drug. The end-payor plaintiffs (EPPs) filed a motion for class certification of two classes, including: (i) a third-party payor (TPP) class, which included entities that reimbursed for branded Lipitor or generic atorvastatin calcium; and (ii) a consumer class, subdivided into two periods specified as the total generic exclusion period (June 28, 2011 to November 29, 2011), covering individuals who bought branded Lipitor without using a Pfizer co-pay card; and the generic overcharge period (November 30, 2011 to December 31, 2012), covering individuals who purchased generic atorvastatin calcium. The court denied the motion for class certification, holding that Rule 23’s ascertainability requirement had not been met. The parties’ positions on ascertainability were supported by opposing expert opinions on a proposed methodology presented by EPPs’ expert, Laura Craft. The prescription pharmaceutical payment flow is intricate, involving several entities such as Third-Party Payers (TPPs), pharmacies, Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Third-Party Administrators (TPAs), Administrative Services Only (ASO) providers, and various federal and state agencies. TPPs, which include insurers, self-funded plans, and union funds, often cover some or all of the costs of prescription drugs. PBMs act as intermediaries in the pharmaceutical distribution chain but do not make payments themselves. They manage pharmacy claims by processing and adjudicating them for health plans and payors. Pharmacies determine the payment process for a drug, including co-pays and coverage, by communicating with PBMs. The PBMs’ role involves handling claims data electronically, detailing who made the purchase, what was purchased, when and where the transaction occurred, and the respective payments made by the consumer and TPP. EPPs’ expert presented an opinion that class members could be identified and excluded using data from this distribution chain. Craft’s methodology relied on standardized, HIPAA-protected data collected and maintained by PBMs, TPPs, and other entities involved, so as to confirm class membership. Craft’s methodology also proposed a method for identifying exclusions from the class, through lists and PBM data. To be included in the Consumer Class, individuals must have made at least one Lipitor purchase without using a Pfizer co-pay card. Pfizer kept detailed records of co-pay Card usage, including reimbursements processed directly between the pharmacy and Pfizer. Although detailed data from Pfizer’s co-pay card program was not available to the EPPs, Craft argued that Pfizer had records of who used the co-pay cards. The defendants argued that the method was not reliable and potentially very costly. They asserted that Craft’s approach relied on unsupported opinions and did not provide a clear, step-by-step methodology for identifying class members, thereby highlighting issues with harmonizing data from various sources and the challenges of using outdated or incomplete data.

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online