Judge Lewis Liman in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed antitrust complaints brought by direct and indirect purchasers against six major suppliers of concrete admixtures, cement additives, admixtures for mortar, and related products (“CCAs”), alleging that the suppliers conspired to fix prices.[1] Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that between 2017 and present, defendants agreed to raise the prices of CCAs, including through surcharges and price sheets. In addition to these allegedly “parallel” price increases, plaintiffs further alleged:

• Pre-conspiracy data showed defendants’ pricing practices did not uniformly increase prior to the alleged conspiracy;
• Declining costs for producing CCAs undermined any argument price increases were driven by higher input costs;
• Defendants’ membership in trade associations gave them an opportunity to meet, conspire, and receive association-aggregated pricing data that would facilitate collusion;
• Regression analysis of defendants’ price increases indicated that CCA prices rose more than could be explained by normal market forces; and
• The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority, European Commission, Turkish Competition Authority, and United States Department of Justice were investigating defendants for potential antitrust violations, which showed that plaintiffs were presenting plausible antitrust claims.

The Court dismissed all antitrust claims and held these allegations insufficient to plausibly plead a price fixing agreement. The court explained that it would not infer a conspiracy where the alleged price increases were inconsistent in timing, geography, product coverage, and amount. According to Judge Liman, defendants’ price increases could be explained by lawful price inflation over a multi-year period. Plaintiffs’ “conclusory” regression model, the alleged opportunity to conspire through trade associations, and pending government antitrust investigations were all insufficient to overcome this plausible justification for defendants’ conduct, or plaintiffs’ deficient parallel conduct allegations.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, so they will have an opportunity to replead their antitrust claims. 

The dismissal underscores some key takeaways:

• Document Reasons for Pricing Decisions. Companies should document pricing decisions in a manner that demonstrates independent business judgment and the rationale for any pricing changes. This makes it easier to determine the reasons for pricing decisions if disputes arise later. 
• Companies Should Educate Employees About Best Practices for Participating in Trade Associations and Events. The court held that allegations about trade association membership were insufficient and amounted to nothing more than allegations about an opportunity to conspire, as opposed to an actual conspiracy. Nevertheless, company employees need to be aware of potential pitfalls they can face when associating with other industry participants. Companies should adopt antitrust compliance programs and educate any executives or employees attending trade events about what information should not be shared or discussed during such events and how to effectively handle situations that may arise at such events. 
• Trade Associations Should Facilitate Antitrust Compliance. Similarly, trade associations themselves should also be aware of antitrust risks, adopt their own antitrust policies, and utilize antitrust disclaimers during events to protect their members.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Op. & Order, In re Concrete & Cement Additives Antitrust Litig., No. 1:24-md-03097-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2025), ECF No. 300.