Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Del.: ZoomInfo's bid to dismiss Apollo’s counterclaims largely denied in antitrust dispute, (May 8, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Apollo plausibly alleged anticompetitive conduct in the sales intelligence data market.

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware has allowed antitrust counterclaims to proceed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC, finding that competitor Apollo.io plausibly alleged a coordinated scheme to maintain monopoly power through strategic acquisitions, weaponized patent litigation, and a campaign of false statements targeting Apollo's business relationships. The court rejected most of ZoomInfo's motion to dismiss, permitting claims under the Sherman Act, the Lanham Act, and Delaware tort law to advance based on allegations that ZoomInfo spent approximately $1 billion acquiring competitors and their patents, then leveraged those assets alongside misleading customer communications to suppress competition in the business-to-business sales intelligence data market (ZoomInfo Technologies LLC v. Zenleads Inc., d/b/a Apollo.Io, No. 1:25-cv-00324-JCG (D. Del. May 6, 2026)).

Background. The dispute arises from ZoomInfo's patent infringement lawsuit against ZenLeads Inc. d/b/a Apollo.ai, both competitors in the business-to-business sales intelligence data market. ZoomInfo was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 10,380,609 (the ’609 patent) and 11,392,964 (the ’964 patent), both of which descended from the same application and shared a specification, and both of which were directed to automated predictive analytics systems providing for generating sales leads with lead engagement recommendations.

ZoomInfo brought suit against Apollo, alleging that Apollo’s go-to-market intelligence and sales infringed at least claim 1 of each patent. Apollo brought four counterclaims against ZoomInfo for monopolization, false advertising, violations of Delaware’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

According to Apollo's counterclaims, ZoomInfo dominates this industry, and Apollo represents the first genuine challenge to that dominance in recent years. Apollo alleged that ZoomInfo responded to this competitive threat with a three-pronged anticompetitive scheme: acquiring competitors and their patents to exclude rivals from the marketplace, weaponizing the newly-acquired EverString patents against Apollo through litigation, and conducting a campaign to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Apollo's products.

Apollo contended that ZoomInfo spent approximately $1 billion between November 2015 and May 2022 to acquire at least eight companies, with some acquisitions expressly aimed at purchasing competitors and obtaining their customer bases. These acquisitions allegedly included Chorus.ai, which possessed the largest patent portfolio in conversational intelligence; iProfile, a sales intelligence platform; RainKing, a provider of business-to-business sales and marketing data; and EverString, a competing go-to-market sales provider.

The alleged campaign against Apollo intensified in March 2025, following a dispute between LinkedIn and Apollo that resulted in LinkedIn temporarily delisting Apollo's corporate page. Apollo claimed ZoomInfo employees spread false and misleading information about Apollo's data quality, product reliability, and relationship with LinkedIn to existing and prospective customers, both publicly on LinkedIn and privately in customer communications.

Monopolization claims. On the monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court applied the two-element test established in United States v. Grinnell Corp.: possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power through means other than superior products, business acumen, or historic accident.

Apollo defined the relevant market as sales intelligence data in the United States. The court found Apollo sufficiently alleged both parties offer similar sales intelligence data services that are reasonably interchangeable. Apollo claimed ZoomInfo's market share exceeded 55 percent throughout the relevant period, and even higher among enterprise customers. The court concluded Apollo plausibly alleged indirect evidence of monopoly power by demonstrating ZoomInfo extracted supracompetitive prices, possessed a dominant market share, and the market had entry barriers including investment requirements, sunk costs for software development, and ZoomInfo's restrictive contractual terms.

On anticompetitive conduct, the court emphasized that such conduct is context-dependent and must be evaluated holistically rather than in isolation. The court found particularly significant Apollo's allegations regarding false or misleading statements made or promoted by ZoomInfo employees to customers and the broader LinkedIn network. The court noted that in a market where Apollo directly rivals ZoomInfo, and where products specialize in accessing and retaining data, the alleged false statements influenced customer decision-making and suppressed competition.

The court specifically highlighted that Customer 4 expressly declined to retain Apollo due to ZoomInfo's misrepresentations and chose to pay higher prices with ZoomInfo as a result. The court found these factual allegations, combined with the industry context, plausibly demonstrated competitive conduct on some basis other than the merits.

Regarding antitrust standing, the court concluded Apollo sufficiently alleged antitrust injury. The court found Apollo plausibly alleged injuries, including diverted sales, lost business relationships, reputational damage, and increased costs, that were means by which ZoomInfo sought to maintain its monopoly. The court reasoned that the facts alleged reasonably indicated a connection between antitrust violations and intent to cause antitrust injury, showing direct injury to Apollo's business, industry innovation, and customer choice. Therefore the court denied ZoomInfo’s motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claims.

False advertising claim. For the Lanham Act claim, the court applied Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, finding the claim sounded in fraud based on Apollo's allegations that ZoomInfo acted willfully and with intent to deceive. The court examined specific communications, including a March 7, 2025 LinkedIn post by ZoomInfo Senior Performance Marketing Manager accusing Apollo of "theft" and "unethical greed," which thirteen ZoomInfo employees promoted through reactions. Apollo alleged these reactions redistributed false information across LinkedIn's network to current and prospective customers.

The court found particularly significant an email from a ZoomInfo employee to a potential customer that linked to the LinkedIn post, repeated false claims about Apollo being banned from LinkedIn for scraping personally identifiable information, and promoted ZoomInfo's business. The court concluded this communication plausibly demonstrated commercial speech designed to influence purchasing decisions. Accepting Apollo's factual allegations as true, the court found Apollo satisfied all five elements of a Lanham Act false advertising claim and met Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirements.

Remaining counts. The court granted ZoomInfo's motion to dismiss Count III, alleging violation of Delaware's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, without prejudice. The court found Apollo failed to identify which of the statute's twelve subsections ZoomInfo allegedly violated, making the pleading insufficiently specific to put ZoomInfo on notice.

However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Count IV for tortious interference with prospective business advantage, finding Apollo sufficiently alleged reasonable probability of business opportunities, intentional interference, proximate causation, and damages based on the customer communications and lost relationships detailed in the counterclaims.

Lastly, the court ordered the stay of discovery on non-patent counterclaims lifted.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00324-JCG.

Judge: Choe-Groves, J.

Attorneys: Monte Terrell Squire (Duane Morris LLP) for Zoominfo Technologies LLC. Adam Wyatt Poff (Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP) for Zenleads Inc.

Companies: Zoominfo Technologies LLC; Zenleads Inc.

Cases: Antitrust Advertising DelawareNews