Plaintiff challenging Whole Foods-Wild Oats agrees to judgment in favor of supermarket
On Friday, May 25, the plaintiff in a federal antitrust lawsuit challenging Whole Foods’ merger with Wild Oats agreed to an entry of judgment in favor of Whole Foods. Ekaterini Kottaras brought suit in 2008, claiming that the merger led to higher prices for premium, natural and organic products. However, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg (D.C.) had denied Kottaras’ motion to certify a class in January of this year, and the Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal of the order on April 20. Judge Boasberg had found that evidence of harm varied from person to person. Furthermore, the model presented by the expert would not be able to calculate net damages to Whole Foods customers accurately.
Featured News
EU Set to Review Rival Netflix and Paramount Skydance Bids for Warner Bros. Discovery
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Judge Tosses Drug Pricing Conspiracy Case Against CVS, UnitedHealth, Evernorth
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
House Panel Alleges CVS Used Contracts to Suppress Pharmacy Competition
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
AI Is Changing M&A as Regulators Target ‘Killer Acquisitions’ and Data Control
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Epic Games Brings in Veteran Tech Lawyer as Legal Chief
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Recidivism
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Recidivism, Multiple Offending, and Serial Offending in Antitrust
Jan 21, 2026 by
Gregory Werden
Antitrust Recidivism: Why Repeat Cases Appear, and Why True Reoffending Is Rare in the United States
Jan 21, 2026 by
Lisa M. Phelan, Megan S. Golden, Adrienne Irmer & Nina Worth
99 Antitrust Problems – Is Recidivism One?
Jan 21, 2026 by
Brian A. Ratner & Kartik S. Madiraju
Holding A Cat by the Tail: A View of Cartel Recidivism in U.S. Antitrust Enforcement
Jan 21, 2026 by
Mark & KaDee L. Ru