Protecting Workers from Antitrust Violations

Antitrust laws don’t just regulate big corporations—they play a critical role in protecting workers from antitrust violations.

The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) enforce these laws to ensure fair competition in labor markets. Understanding your rights is essential to recognizing illegal employer practices and taking action.

These laws safeguard competition for labor, just as they protect competition for goods and services. They ensure that workers have the freedom to pursue the best opportunities for themselves and their families.

Revised Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers

The DOJ and FTC have issued updated “Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers” to combat exploitative business practices that harm workers. The revised guidelines outline how authorities assess violations of laws such as the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Federal Trade Commission Act.

Key Areas of Focus Include:

Wage-Fixing Agreements: Employers colluding to set wages at artificially low levels.

No-Poach Agreements: Agreements between companies not to recruit, solicit, or hire workers, or to fix wages or terms of employment, may violate the antitrust laws and may expose companies and executives to criminal liability.

Franchise No-Poach Agreements: Agreements in the franchise context not to poach, hire, or solicit employees of the franchisor or franchisees may violate the antitrust laws.

Non-Compete Clauses: Restrictions preventing employees from leaving for better opportunities. Non-compete clauses can play a significant role in antitrust considerations, because they restrict workers’ ability to pursue better employment opportunities or start a competing business; they also decrease competition for workers.

Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”): Overbroad NDAs that unfairly limit job mobility, accepting other employment, or starting a business. NDAs can be anticompetitive if they:

  • Cover an excessively wide range of information, such as any information “usable in” or “related to” an industry, thereby restricting a worker’s ability to use their skills and knowledge in future employment and, moreover, limiting their job mobility and competition in the labor market. ​
  • Are worded in a way that suggests workers could face lawsuits or adverse employment consequences for reporting potential violations of law to state or federal authorities, or for cooperating with government investigations.​ This can prevent workers from reporting illegal activities, thereby undermining regulatory enforcement and competition.

Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (“TRAPs”): Requiring workers to repay excessive training costs, which can be anticompetitive if they function to prevent workers from moving to other jobs or starting their own business.

Non-Solicitation Agreements: Restrictions preventing former employees from soliciting former clients or customers can be anticompetitive, if they are so broad that they function to prevent a worker from seeking or accepting another job or starting a business.

Exit Fees and Liquidated Damages: Provisions requiring workers to pay a financial penalty for leaving their employer can be anticompetitive, such as if they prevent workers from working for another firm or starting a business.

Sharing Competitively Sensitive Information: Employers exchanging wage and employment terms with competitors to suppress wages.

Why Protecting Workers from Antitrust Violations Matters 

When employers collude to restrict competition in the labor market, workers suffer. These illegal practices lead to:

  • Lower wages
  • Fewer job opportunities
  • Reduced bargaining power
  • Worsened working conditions

Take Action and Protect Yourself From Antitrust Violations – Know Your Rights 

The antitrust laws prohibit harmful, anticompetitive practices to promote fair competition and better job opportunities.

If you believe your employer has been engaging in unlawful wage-fixing, no-poach agreements or other prohibited conduct, send us a message or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims. 

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from fraud and corporate misconduct. Our attorneys have served as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in cases recovering over $10 billion on behalf of institutional and individual investors and consumers.

Through class action litigation, we hold corporations accountable for securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, unfair or inadequate mergers and acquisitions, and antitrust violations. We also represent whistleblowers and prosecute data breach, consumer protection, and employment law violations, as well as cases involving retirement plan mismanagement and deceptive business practices. With a results-driven approach, we pursue impactful litigation to achieve meaningful results and recoveries for those we represent.

    Our class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for any fees or litigation expenses. 

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    Contact Us

    ADDRESS

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
    2001 Market Street
    Suite 2500
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    PHONE

    Tel: 215-792-6676

    EMAIL

    [email protected]

    Protect Your 401(k) Retirement Plan Savings from Fiduciary Violations

    A 401(k) retirement plan is one of the most important financial benefits for employees, helping to secure long-term financial stability. However, breaches of fiduciary duty, such as mismanagement and corporate misconduct, can threaten your hard-earned savings.

    Understanding your rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) is essential to protecting your 401(k) retirement plan funds and holding plan fiduciaries accountable.

    ERISA Protections and Your 401(k)

    ERISA provides essential protections for 401(k) retirement plan participants, including:

    • Right to Information – You are entitled to key plan documents, such as the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”), annual reports, and account statements.
    • Fiduciary Duties – Plan administrators must act solely in the best interest of participants, avoiding conflicts of interest.
    • Protection from Mismanagement – Employers and fiduciaries must manage investments responsibly, control fees, and ensure transparency.
    • Right to Legal Recourse – If fiduciary duties are breached, participants may have the right to seek legal action to recover financial losses.

    What Is a Fiduciary Breach?

    Fiduciary breaches occur when plan administrators fail to act in the best interest of participants or engage in misconduct, such as:

    • Excessive Fees – Charging unreasonably high fees, reducing retirement savings over time.
    • Poor Investment Management – Offering high-risk, underperforming, or conflicted investment options.
    • Failure to Monitor the Plan – Neglecting oversight of third-party administrators or failing to correct mismanagement.
    • Delayed Contributions – Employers failing to deposit employee contributions on time, which may impact investment growth.

    Steps to Take if You Suspect Fiduciary Breaches or Mismanagement

    If you believe your 401(k) retirement plan is being mismanaged, consider taking these steps to protect your rights:

    1. Review Plan Documents – Check your SPD, account statements, and fee disclosures for inconsistencies.
    2. Report to the Plan Administrator – Raise concerns with your employer or plan fiduciary.
    3. File a Complaint – Report violations to the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA).
    4. Seek Legal Assistance – If you have suffered financial losses, you may have a legal claim.

    How Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Can Help

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is dedicated to protecting employees from 401(k) retirement plan fiduciary mismanagement. If you suspect a breach of fiduciary duties, our experienced attorneys can evaluate your case. Don’t let fiduciary mismanagement put your retirement savings at risk.

    For a free, no-obligation legal consultation, send us a message or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected]

    About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from fraud and corporate misconduct. Our attorneys have served as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in cases recovering over $10 billion on behalf of institutional and individual investors and consumers.

    Through class action litigation, we hold corporations accountable for securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, unfair or inadequate mergers and acquisitions, and antitrust violations. We also represent whistleblowers and prosecute data breach, consumer protection, and employment law violations, as well as cases involving retirement plan mismanagement and deceptive business practices. With a results-driven approach, we pursue impactful litigation to achieve meaningful results and recoveries for those we represent.

      Our class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for any fees or litigation expenses. 

      SEND US A MESSAGE

      Contact Us

      ADDRESS

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
      2001 Market Street
      Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103

      PHONE

      Tel: 215-792-6676

      EMAIL

      [email protected]

      2024 Securities Class Action Trends – Key Insights from NERA’s Latest Year in Review

      Securities class action trends are dynamic, and the latest report from NERA Economic Consulting, “Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2024 Full-Year Review,” provides a comprehensive look at the evolving landscape of securities litigation.

      With more than three decades of data and analysis behind them, the experts at NERA offer fresh insights into the state of securities class actions in 2024, including changes in filing, dismissal, and settlement trends.

      Securities Class Action Trends Show A Stable Filing Environment

      In 2024, the number of new federal securities class action suits filed remained consistent with the previous year, with 229 cases, mirroring the 229 filings recorded in 2023. This signals that, despite fluctuating market conditions, the filing rate for securities class actions has held steady in recent years.

      One notable trend from the report is the concentration of filings within two key sectors: technology and healthcare.

      These industries combined accounted for more than half of all securities class actions filed in 2024. This reflects the continued prominence of these sectors in the broader market. Additionally, the report highlights a significant geographical concentration, with 61% of cases filed within the Second and Ninth Circuits, which encompass key financial markets such as New York and California.

      New Allegations Shaping Securities Class Action Trends in 2024

      The nature of the claims brought forward in 2024’s securities class actions reveals some noteworthy shifts. Of the 229 cases filed, 41% involved allegations related to missed earnings guidance, while only 8% centered around merger-integration issues. This continues the trend of earnings guidance-related cases dominating the landscape.

      Perhaps the most striking developments in 2024 were the significant increases in AI- and COVID-related claims. AI-related securities cases more than doubled, with 13 new lawsuits filed in 2024 compared to just a few in the previous year.

      Similarly, COVID-related claims saw a 46% jump from 2023, with 19 cases filed. These numbers indicate that evolving market trends, particularly the explosive growth of AI and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, are making their mark on the securities class action space.

      On the other hand, the once-bustling arenas of cryptocurrency and SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company) litigation have continued their decline. Only eight crypto-related cases and nine SPAC-related suits were filed in 2024, underscoring the fading intensity of legal action in these areas after their peak years.

      A Resurgence in Case Resolutions

      After a six-year decline, resolutions of securities class actions saw a 17% increase in 2024, with a total of 217 cases resolved. The breakdown of resolutions included 124 dismissals and 93 settlements. Notably, the rise in dismissals was the primary driver behind this increase, particularly cases involving Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and Section 12 claims.

      This shift towards dismissals could signal a more challenging litigation environment for plaintiffs, as courts become more selective in the cases they allow to move forward. However, settlements continue to play a significant role in resolving these cases, with aggregate settlements totaling $3.8 billion in 2024. The largest 10 settlements accounted for about 60% of this total, further emphasizing the concentration of financial resolution in a small number of high-profile cases.

      Investor Losses and Legal Fees

      2024 also saw a sharp rise in investor losses, with the median investor loss reaching $1.76 billion—the highest recorded in the last decade. This reflects the ongoing volatility in the markets and the high stakes involved in these lawsuits.

      In parallel, plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses also saw a notable increase, totaling $1.06 billion in 2024, nearly $90 million more than in 2023. The growth in legal fees is a direct result of the complexity and scale of the cases being litigated, particularly those involving large-scale corporate disputes and high investor losses.

      The Future of Securities Class Action Trends – Looking Ahead

      NERA’s 2024 Full-Year Review provides a snapshot of the current state of securities class action litigation, offering valuable insights into the evolving trends in the industry.

      As technology, healthcare, and other emerging sectors continue to dominate the market, we can expect the nature of securities litigation to evolve alongside these changes. The rise of AI-related and COVID-related claims will likely be a continuing theme, while sectors like cryptocurrency and SPACs might see less activity going forward.

      For professionals in the field of securities litigation, these findings highlight the importance of staying ahead of the curve in terms of strategy and understanding the dynamics that drive filings and resolutions.

      This KLF blog post is designed to present the key points from the NERA report in a way that’s digestible and engaging for readers.

      Please click here to see the full NERA report. 

      Questions About Securities Class Actions?

      Investors and shareholders who have questions about class action lawsuits are encouraged to send us a message or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], [email protected].

      About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. 

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side class action law firm dedicated to protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of institutional and individual investors.

      Kehoe Law Firm’s legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for any fees or litigation expenses.

      SEND US A MESSAGE

      Contact Us

      ADDRESS

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
      2001 Market Street
      Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103

      PHONE

      Tel: 215-792-6676

      EMAIL

      [email protected]

      GoodRx, PBMs Face New Antitrust Price-Fixing Class Action

      GoodRx and PBMs Face Legal and Regulatory Scrutiny 

      Independent pharmacies have recently filed lawsuits in several different federal courts, alleging that GoodRx, in collaboration with several pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”),including CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus, engaged in practices to suppress reimbursement rates and increase fees for independent pharmacies.

      On February 7, 2025, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. filed such a class action lawsuit on behalf of C&M Pharmacy Inc., d/b/a Parvin’s Pharmacy & Katz Pharmacy, in United States District Court, Central District of California.

      Please click C&M Pharmacy, d/b/a Parvin’s Pharmacy & Katz Pharmacy v. GoodRx, Caremark, et al. to view the antitrust class action complaint.

      The lawsuits claim that through GoodRx’s “Integrated Savings Program” (“ISP”), these entities conspired to artificially lower generic drug reimbursement rates and impose higher transaction fees, thereby maximizing their profits at the expense of smaller pharmacies.  The ISP allegedly utilizes GoodRx’s pricing algorithm and real-time data from PBMs to determine the prices of generic drug transactions. This system is said to enrich GoodRx and the PBMs while financially harming independent pharmacies.

      The lawsuits allege that such practices violate antitrust laws by fixing prices and creating unfair competition, ultimately threatening the viability of independent pharmacies.  As a result, independent pharmacies are reimbursed at the lowest rate as determined by the GoodRx algorithm, which often results in lower payments than the rates originally negotiated with the PBMs.

      In a related context, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has been investigating the role of PBMs in the pharmaceutical supply chain. An interim report published in July 2024 highlighted concerns that PBMs, through vertical integration and market concentration, have significant control over prescription drug accessibility and affordability.

      The FTC report found that the six largest PBMs manage nearly 95% of all U.S. prescriptions, enabling them to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. The FTC’s inquiry aims to shed light on PBM practices, including charging fees and clawbacks to unaffiliated pharmacies, steering patients toward PBM-owned pharmacies, and employing opaque reimbursement methods that disadvantage independent pharmacies.

      PBMs and Their Alleged Manipulation of Drug Pricing

      PBMs allegedly manipulate prescription drug pricing in several ways:

      • Dictating Reimbursement Rates: PBMs force independent pharmacies to accept unreasonably low reimbursement rates for dispensing prescriptions, often lower than the pharmacy’s acquisition costs.
      • Charging Retroactive Fees: PBMs impose Direct and Indirect Remuneration (“DIR”) fees and other retroactive fees on pharmacies, which can significantly reduce the pharmacies’ margins. These fees are often tied to performance metrics and can be substantial.
      • Clawbacks: PBMs sometimes instruct pharmacies to collect higher copays from patients than the actual cost of the drug and then claw back the difference, keeping the excess amount.
      • Specialty Drug Pricing: PBMs mark up the prices of specialty generic drugs by significant amounts and reimburse their affiliated pharmacies at higher rates than unaffiliated pharmacies.
      • Vertical Integration: Many PBMs are part of vertically integrated conglomerates that include their own mail-order, specialty, and retail pharmacies. This integration allows them to steer patients to their own pharmacies and manipulate pricing to benefit their affiliated entities.
      • Opaque Contracts: PBMs offer complex, opaque, and ever-changing contracts to independent pharmacies, often on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, preventing pharmacies from negotiating better terms.
      • Exploiting Market Power: PBMs control access to a large share of the market for prescription drug claims, giving them significant leverage over independent pharmacies. They use this power to dictate terms and underpay those pharmacies.
      • Data Sharing and Algorithmic Pricing: In the case of the GoodRx Integrated Savings Program, PBMs share real-time pricing data with GoodRx, allowing them to algorithmically select the lowest reimbursement rate from competitors, further suppressing payments to pharmacies.

      In July 2024, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability released a report scrutinizing the practices of the three largest PBMsCVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx.

      The report concluded that these PBMs have monopolized the pharmaceutical marketplace by deploying deliberate, anticompetitive pricing tactics that are raising prescription drug prices, undermining community pharmacies, and harming patients across the United States.

      The National Community Pharmacists Association (“NCPA”), representing independent pharmacists, has been vocal about the detrimental effects of PBM practices. In a statement submitted to the House Oversight Committee, the NCPA highlighted how PBMs prioritize their interests, often at the expense of patients, employers, taxpayers, and community pharmacies. The association emphasized the urgent need for Congress to enact robust PBM reform legislation to address these issues.

      These developments underscore the growing concern among lawmakers and industry stakeholders regarding PBM practices and their impact on independent pharmacies and patient care.

      Questions About the Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Against GoodRx, Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact Healthcare and Navitus Health Solutions?

      To learn more about the lawsuit or discuss potential legal claims, please send us a message or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], [email protected], for a free, no-obligation legal evaluation.

      About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff-side class action law firm specializing in securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties, and corporate misconduct. Collectively, the firm’s partners have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in high-profile cases that have recovered more than $10 billion for both institutional and individual investors.

      Kehoe Law Firm’s legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for any fees or litigation expenses.

      SEND US A MESSAGE

      Contact Us

      ADDRESS

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
      2001 Market Street
      Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103

      PHONE

      Tel: 215-792-6676

      EMAIL

      [email protected]

      Computer Employees: Are You Exempt from Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Requirements?

      Computer employees should be aware that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires that most employees in the U.S. be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at not less than time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

      The FLSA, however, provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly skilled workers in the computer field who meet certain tests regarding their job duties and who are paid at least the standard salary level on a salary basis, or paid on an hourly basis at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour.

      It is important to note that job titles do not determine exemption status. For the employer to claim this exemption, an employee’s specific job duties and compensation must meet all the requirements of the Department of Labor’s regulations.

      Requirements to Qualify for the Computer Employee Exemption

      To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the employer must ensure all the following requirements are met:

      • The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than the standard salary level required by 29 CFR 541.600 or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour;
      • The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field performing the following primary duties:*
          • The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
          • The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;
          • The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
          • A combination of these duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skill.

      Computer Employee Exemption: What’s Not Included

      The computer employee exemption does not include employees engaged in the manufacture or repair of computer hardware and related equipment.

      Employees whose work is highly dependent upon, or facilitated by, the use of computers and computer software programs (e.g., engineers, drafters and others skilled in computer-aided design software), but who are not primarily engaged in computer systems analysis and programming or other similarly skilled computer-related occupations identified in the primary duties test described above, are also not exempt under the computer employee exemption.

      *Primary duty means the principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs. Determination of an employee’s primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case, with the major emphasis on the whole character of the employee’s job.

      Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Fact Sheet 17E.

      Have You Been Wrongfully Denied Overtime as a Computer Employee?

        If you believe you have been wrongfully denied overtime by your employer, Kehoe Law Firm is here to help. Our experienced attorneys are dedicated to protecting workers’ rights. For a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims, send us a message or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected]

        No-Cost Legal Assistance

        Our class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for any fees or litigation expenses. 

        SEND US A MESSAGE

        Contact Us

        ADDRESS

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
        2001 Market Street
        Suite 2500
        Philadelphia, PA 19103

        PHONE

        Tel: 215-792-6676

        EMAIL

        [email protected]

        Nurses, Overtime Pay, and the FLSA

        The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at not less than time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

        Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, however, provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executiveadministrativeprofessional and outside sales employees.

        Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) also exempt certain computer employees.

        To qualify for exemption, employees must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $684 per week.

        Nurses and the Learned Professional Exemption

        To qualify for the learned professional employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:

        • The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $684 per week;
        • The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;
        • The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and
        • The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.

        Registered nurses who are paid on an hourly basis should receive overtime pay. However, registered nurses who are registered by the appropriate State examining board generally meet the duties requirements for the learned professional exemption and, if paid on a salary basis of at least $684 per week, may be classified as exempt.

        Licensed practical nurses and other similar health care employees, however, generally do not qualify as exempt learned professionals, regardless of work experience and training, because possession of a specialized advanced academic degree is not a standard prerequisite for entry into such occupations, and are entitled to overtime pay.

        Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Fact Sheet 17N.

        Do You Believe Your Employer Has Wrongfully Denied You Overtime Pay?

          If so, Kehoe Law Firm is here to help. Our experienced attorneys are dedicated to protecting workers’ rights. For a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims, send us a message or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected]

          No-Cost Legal Assistance

          Our class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for any fees or litigation expenses. 

          SEND US A MESSAGE

          Contact Us

          ADDRESS

          Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
          2001 Market Street
          Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

          PHONE

          Tel: 215-792-6676

          EMAIL

          [email protected]