Judge Allows Antitrust Claims Against Epic Systems to Proceed

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York determined that New York-based startup Particle Health had plausibly alleged exclusionary conduct. According to a statement from the court, Epic allegedly restricted access to records for Particle’s customers, urged clients to cut ties with the company, and imposed delays on new user onboarding. Particle also claimed Epic harmed its reputation by questioning how it handled patient data. Judge Buchwald wrote in her decision that the conduct described was “sufficiently anticompetitive, and intended to exclude Particle from that market.”

The ruling allows claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act—covering monopolization, attempted monopolization, and monopoly leveraging—to move forward. A state law claim for tortious interference with contract also survived, based on allegations that Epic persuaded analytics company XCures to terminate its agreement with Particle. Other claims were dismissed, including those under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, New York’s Donnelly Act, and allegations of defamation and trade libel. Per the decision, Particle had not established the element of actual malice, which is required when claims involve matters of public concern such as data security.

Read more: Epic Systems Loses Bid to Toss Antitrust Claims in US Medical Records Lawsuit

Epic, which provides software handling the medical records of much of the U.S. population, has denied wrongdoing. The company said in a statement that most claims were dismissed and that it is confident the remaining ones will not succeed. It has argued that its actions stemmed from legitimate privacy and security concerns.

Particle, founded in 2018 and active in the payer platform market since 2023, contends that Epic controls access to health data for nearly 94 percent of Americans and has exploited that position to block rivals. Chief executive Jason Prestinario described the ruling as a victory, saying it preserved the company’s “core monopolization antitrust claims” and advanced its mission of improving patient care and control over personal health information.

The case, titled Particle Health Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., will now move to the discovery phase. Both sides are expected to examine the contours of the payer platform market and whether Epic’s practices violated federal antitrust law.

Source: Law Commentary