State and federal antitrust laws are designed to protect competition and prevent companies with market power from engaging in conduct that harms businesses, consumers, or the broader marketplace. These laws exist to ensure that markets remain competitive and that no single company—or small group of companies—can unfairly dominate an industry through exclusionary or anti-competitive practices.

Brian Murray Law represents businesses, institutions, and other market participants in antitrust litigation involving unlawful restraints of trade, monopolistic conduct, and other practices that distort competition. Antitrust actions often challenge business practices or transactions that suppress competition, inflate prices, limit consumer choice, or restrict access to markets. A competitive marketplace ultimately benefits both businesses and consumers, and antitrust enforcement plays a critical role in preserving that balance.

Many antitrust cases are prosecuted as class actions, which allow multiple parties harmed by the same anti-competitive conduct to pursue their claims collectively. Class actions provide an efficient and effective mechanism for addressing widespread antitrust violations, particularly where individual claims may be too costly to pursue on a standalone basis. Through class litigation, affected businesses and consumers can pool resources and seek meaningful relief in a single proceeding.

The firm has experience litigating antitrust claims under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, including matters involving price-fixing, market allocation, unlawful tying arrangements, monopolization, and anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. Depending on the nature of the conduct and the relationship between the parties, antitrust claims may be brought on behalf of direct purchasers under federal law or, in appropriate cases, by indirect purchasers under applicable state antitrust or consumer protection statutes.

Brian Murray Law also represents clients in complex antitrust matters involving market manipulation and coordinated schemes that impact commodity, financial, and consumer markets. Through these actions, the firm works to hold wrongdoers accountable and to recover damages for those harmed by unlawful anti-competitive conduct.

The firm has represented large and mid-sized businesses and health and welfare funds in both direct and indirect purchaser antitrust litigation.

  • Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc.
  • The Rice Co., Inc.
  • Purdy Bros. Trucking Co., Inc.
  • East Valley Water District
  • TC Construction Corp.
  • AGS Devices Co.
  • Ace Marine Rigging & Supply, Inc.
  • Chandler Packaging, Inc.
  • Trans Pak, Inc.
  • White Oak Fund, LLP
  • Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund
  • United Firefighters Assn.
  • United Fire Officers Assn.
  • Carleton Trucking Co., Inc.
  • Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund
  • The Plaza Market
  • OM Commercial Neenah Oil, Inc.

Antitrust and Competition Matters

  • In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Playmobil Products Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Time Warner Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation
  • In re National Football League “Sunday Ticket” Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation
  • In re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Solodyn
  • In re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Sensipar Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Niaspan
  • In re LIBOR
  • In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation
  • In re Gold Futures & Options Trading Litigation
  • In re Platinum & Palladium Antitrust Litigation
  • Sullivan v. Barclays PLC
  • Sonterra Cap. Master Fund v. Credit Suisse Group AG
  • Twin City Iron Pension Fund v. Bank of Nova Scotia
  • Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group