In the latest development of the case, a US District Judge has approved of the plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their acceptance of a settlement offered by hospital system UPMC and insurer Highmark Inc., accused of conspiring to bar competing insurers out of the region. According to reports, the defendants had originally offered a settlement of up to $4.5 million for the attorneys. While the plaintiffs, which include a hotel company and a property management conglomerate of Western Pennsylvania, first accepted the offer, they moved to withdrawal the acceptance, arguing the settlement was not sufficient to premium payers. The plaintiffs argued that the alleged collusion between the defendants allowed Highmark to charge excessive premium rates.
Featured News
French Antitrust Raid Targets Passenger Transport Sector
Feb 18, 2026 by
CPI
FTC Moves to Bring Back Rules To Make It Easier for Consumers to Cancel Subscriptions
Feb 18, 2026 by
CPI
California Lawmaker Backs Sweeping Antitrust Overhaul
Feb 18, 2026 by
CPI
Brazil’s Competition Authority Probes Microsoft’s Jumpstart Program Over Browser Concerns
Feb 18, 2026 by
CPI
The Battle Between CFTC and State Regulators Over Prediction Markets Spreads to Capitol Hill
Feb 18, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber