Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Industrial equipment rental plaintiffs dump defendants’ motions to dismiss antitrust claims, (Sep 30, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The court only dismissed one parent company because there was no facial indication that it participated in or ratified the alleged price-fixing scheme.

Industrial equipment renters plausibly alleged that various rental companies and Rouse Services LLC (Rouse), a construction equipment information services company, entered into an unlawful agreement in both restraint of trade and information exchange, held the federal district court in Chicago. The court also found the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to put EquipmentShare.com, Home Depot, and Sunstate on sufficient notice of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims in connection with Rouse Rental Insights (RRI), a benchmarking platform. However, the court granted the dismissal motion of Rouse parent company RB Global, Inc. (RB Global), a Canada -based equipment auctioneer, because the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege any theory to keep RB Global in the lawsuit. The allegations did not suggest that RB Global directly participated in the alleged price-fixing conspiracy, ratified it, used the RRI system, or comprised an integrated enterprise with Rouse. The court denied the various dismissal motions except for the RB Global motion (In Re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-03487 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2026)).

Background. In May 2025, 2nd Gen Plumbing LLC, a Michigan-based plumbing services company filed a putative class action alleging that major construction equipment rental companies conspired to fix and inflate rental prices nationwide. Defendants included RB Global, Inc., a heavy equipment auctioneer; RB Global subsidiary Rouse Services LLC (Rouse), a construction equipment information services company; and leading equipment rental companies United Rentals, Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., HERC Rentals Inc., HERC Holdings, Inc., H&E Equipment Services, Inc., and Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC.

The lawsuit alleged Rouse facilitated the price-fixing scheme by creating Rouse Rental Insights (RRI), a benchmarking platform that “collects competitively sensitive information (‘CSI’) from its clients, including the Rental Company Defendants, on a daily basis and provides benchmark reports back to its clients that include rental rates, fleet utilization information, and other key performance metrics”.

In September 2025, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the 2nd Gen Plumbing case with seven other pending putative class actions, from three districts, with the federal district court in Chicago. Other plaintiffs included Haxton Masonry, Inc.; Van Horst General Contractors, LLC; Enterprise Lodging of Huntsville, LLC; IPCS Corporation; AXG Roofing, LLC; and McGinnis Construction Co. Other defendants included The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Home Depot) and EquipmentShare.com (collectively, rental company defendants). All plaintiffs alleged that the rental company defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanges of detailed, accurate, non-public, and competitively sensitive information, including supply and utilization strategies with one another to fix supra-competitive prices (In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 13, 2025)).

The consolidated amended complaint (CAC) asserted two Section 1 Sherman Act claims on behalf of a proposed class of individuals and entities that rent construction equipment from the defendants. The first count alleged an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade. The second count alleged an unlawful information-exchange agreement. In addition to the named defendants, other major rental companies and individuals (co-conspirators, together with the named defendants, the Rouse Cartel) allegedly use RRI.

Various rental company defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The motion raised arguments common to all defendants. RB Global, EquipmentShare.com, Home Depot, and Sunstate filed other motions to dismiss.

Timeliness. The court held the action was timely because it only sought damages for the class period beginning April 1, 2021. That was within four years of the first-filed action.

Restraint of trade. The plaintiffs argued they sufficiently pleaded both a horizontal and horizontal hub-and-spokes agreement through direct evidence; the theory of invitation and acceptance; and circumstantial evidence. The court said it only needed to address one of these three theories of proof because the plaintiffs pleaded them in the alternative. At oral argument, the plaintiffs said their circumstantial evidence theory was the best fit with their alleged facts, so the court began with that.

Parallel conduct. The court analyzed that the plaintiffs’ allegations of parallel conduct included: (1) persistent increases in rental construction equipment prices from 2021 onward; and (2) the rental company defendants’ rapid uptake of RRI. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that the four largest rental companies, United Rentals, Sunbelt, HERC, and H&E, each reported annual rental rate increases between five and ten percent during this period. An industry insider allegedly observed “double-digit” increases between 2021 and 2023.

The CAC said the rate increases were coincident with rapid industry adoption of RRI, record profits for each rental company defendant, and departure from individual pricing methods in favor of submission of competitively sensitive information to Rouse on a “nightly” basis. The rental companies allegedly received pricing recommendations in return that they incorporated into their quoting systems, with monitoring and enforced compliance with the higher RRI price, despite declining utilization rates. The court found this was enough to allege plausible conscious parallel conduct.

The rental company defendants and the co-conspirators did not need to have contracted simultaneously with Rouse because simultaneity was not required to prove parallel conduct. Even if the rental company defendants did not use the RRI prices in the same way, that, too, did not necessarily defeat a finding of parallel conduct. In any event, the plaintiffs alleged deviation rarely occurred despite technical feasibility. The CAC plausibly alleged the Rouse platform operation was obligatory with 90% compliance within the RRI price range.

Plus factors. The plaintiffs alleged three plus factors: (1) exchange of competitively sensitive information; (2) actions against self-interest; and (3) market structure, opportunity, and motive to conspire.

As for exchange of competitively sensitive information, the plaintiffs alleged how Rouse participants shared their proprietary information with Rouse daily. Rouse then allegedly generated RRI prices the participants almost always adopted despite declining utilization. The plaintiffs also alleged competitors could infer the name of any first-mover to discount.

As for actions against self-interest, these included Rouse pre-populating its RRI prices into the rental company defendants’ quoting systems, raising rental prices despite declining utilization, and other circumstances.

Last, the plaintiffs alleged opportunities and motive to collude and a price structure that all supported an inference of price fixing by a reduced number of firms. The court said it had to read the CAC as a whole, and reading it that way, the CAC supported a plausible inference of conspiracy.

Cases the defendants cited where the courts dismissed antitrust complaints based on anonymized and aggregated benchmarking were distinguishable. Unlike those cases, the instant plaintiffs alleged facts explaining the non-public pricing and other information uploaded to RRI; how RRI used the information to produce RRI prices; and how the alleged enforcement mechanisms suggested the RRI prices were obligatory, not just a pricing benchmark. Discovery might prove otherwise, but the court had to take the allegations as true at the pleading stage.

Information exchange. The court did not apply the “quick look” to the information exchange count because the parties fully briefed rule-of-reason analysis. As already discussed, the plaintiffs alleged sufficient circumstantial evidence of an agreement among defendants to share anticompetitive information.

Relevant market. The defendants also alleged nationwide services that supported a nationwide market at this stage. The plaintiffs defined the relevant market as the rental market for construction equipment in the U.S. The defendants mounted a joint challenge to the relevant U.S. geographic market. They argued the allegations in support of a nationwide market focused solely on the seller and regional demands, thus undermining any plausible nationwide market. However, the court saw the CAC alleged each rental company defendant operated a nationwide branch network with dozens of locations. HERC and United Rentals described their ability to move their equipment fleet around the country. The Rouse platform produced national, regional, and local benchmarks presupposing a nationwide competitive arena. These alleged facts described a plausible nationwide market.

The court found the plaintiffs alleged a plausible product market for medium-to-large machinery like aerial lifts, bulldozers, skid steers, compaction machines, and the like. Only Home Depot challenged the product market on the basis it was inconsistent with commercial realities and really represented two distinct product clusters inasmuch as the plaintiffs stretched it to encompass the smaller equipment that only Home Depot rents. The court said the Supreme Court does not see a barrier to combining different products or services in a single market if the combination reflects commercial realities. The plaintiffs explained that they described a market for industrial-grade machinery, and the court found that a sufficiently plausible relevant market.

Anticompetitive effects. As for anticompetitive effects, the plaintiffs alleged information exchange resulted in higher rental equipment prices, as already described at length, with enforcement mechanisms. The allegations here sufficed to state an information exchange claim worthy of discovery.

RB Global. The court agreed with RB Global that the plaintiffs improperly sought to hold it liable as the parent company of Rouse. The plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege RB Global directly participated in the conspiracy. The plaintiffs argued RB Global was liable due to its own direct participation in the alleged conspiracy, including approval and ratification of Rouse anticompetitive acts, and because RB Global and Rouse are integrated enterprises. However, the court found RB Global could have acquired Rouse for any number of lawful economic reasons, whereas the plaintiffs alleged nothing to infer RB Global knowingly acquired Rouse as the instrumentality of the alleged conspiracy.

The court found the plaintiffs also never explained how RB Global input its data into the Rouse RRI system or how RB Global influenced RRI prices. Assorted other allegations about RB Global control over Rouse operations and profiting from RRI were boilerplate and conclusory. They did not sufficiently outline RB Global direct participation. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ knowing approval and ratification arguments for the same reasons.

As for integrated enterprise arguments, the court similarly found the plaintiffs did not plead any non-conclusory allegations to suggest RB Global agreed to conspire. A case the plaintiffs cited was distinguishable because it included far more detailed allegations about parent control over a subsidiary. The court granted RB Global’s motion to dismiss.

Other dismissal motions. The court found the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to place EquipmentShare.com, Home Depot, and Sunstate on notice of the antitrust claims. The plaintiffs alleged these defendants, like the others, all contracted with Rouse to transmit competitively sensitive data and gain access to the Rouse RRI service. These defendants did not deny at least the existence of agreements. The court found R. 8 satisfied. There was no group pleading deficiency. The CAC individually identified these defendants, their corporate details, and geographical reach. The court denied their dismissal motions.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-03487.

Judge: Ellis, S.

Attorneys: Daniel John Walker (Hausfeld LLP) for AXG Roofing, LLC. Dylan I. Ballard (Vinson & Elkins.) for Rouse Services LLC.

Companies: AXG Roofing, LLC; Rouse Services LLC

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust IllinoisNews GCNNews