Antitrust Litigation

Winning By Outworking, Outthinking And Outstrategizing The Competition.

Monopolization, price fixing, the Robinson-Patman Act and other illegal restraints of trade. Our lawyers have successfully litigated these types of cases – and others within the wide range of antitrust matters.

Bill Markovits is a big reason for the firm’s success. Bill heads our antitrust practice and his antitrust experience began more than 30 years ago as a trial attorney with the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. In private practice, he’s continued to be involved in significant cases, including the ChoiceCare litigation in the Southern District of Ohio, which resulted in a jury verdict of more than $100 million. In the national Microsoft MDL, Bill was chosen among his peer plaintiff’s attorneys to take the deposition of Bill Gates. His experience, in partnership with the firm’s other expert attorneys, helps explain why our antitrust abilities are second to none.

Read Bill Markovits’ complete bio

You will not find another boutique law firm that equals Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC’s expertise and success in prosecuting antitrust litigation.

Successes At A Glance

• Williams v. Duke Energy International, Inc., 681 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2012): In a case brought as a class action by a utility’s ratepayers for selective payment of illegal rebates to certain ratepayers, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of the excluded ratepayers’ claims that the utility violated the RICO statute, the Robinson-Patman Act, and the state corrupt practices act.
• Collins Inkjet v. Eastman Kodak, No. 1:13-cv-0664, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio (trial counsel for Collins in an antitrust tying claim resulting in a preliminary injunction against Kodak – a decision that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit: Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 781 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 2015)).
• In re Microsoft Corporation Antitrust Litigation (District of Maryland) (Co-Chair).
• In re Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation (Multi-District Litigation).
• In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Procter & Gamble Co., et al. v. BASF Aktiengesellschaft, et al.(District of Columbia).
• Hamilton County Board of Commissioners v. National Football League, et al. (Southern District of Ohio).
• State of Ohio, Milk Antitrust Litigation (Co-Lead).
• In re Choice Care Litigation (Southern District of Ohio).
• Forsyth v. Humana, Inc. (District of Nevada).