Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Ace Hardware defendants seek arbitration, dismissal of antitrust suit alleging hardware retail price-fixing scheme, (Aug 5, 2026)
Organizations Mentioned:Ace Hardware Corp. | Ace Hardware Corporation | Ace Retail Group, Inc. | Ace Retail Holdings LLC | Epicor Software Corp. | Epicor Software Corporation | Home Depot | Lowe's
By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.
Separate filings challenge a consumer’s Sherman Act claims and contend Epicor merely provided software services used by some Ace stores.
An Ace Hardware consumer antitrust case is facing multiple early procedural challenges after Ace Hardware Corporation, related entities, and Epicor Software Corporation jointly moved to halt or dismiss the litigation. Separately, Ace Hardware and affiliated defendants have filed a motion asking the court to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, while Epicor filed a separate motion seeking dismissal of all claims against it. The filings target a putative class action alleging that Ace, Epicor, and thousands of independent Ace stores participated in a conspiracy involving price fixing, market allocation, and anticompetitive information exchanges.
Background. The lawsuit was filed in May by Illinois consumer Sean Twomey against Ace Hardware Corporation, Ace Retail Holdings LLC, Ace Retail Group, Inc., and Epicor Software Corporation. The complaint alleges that the defendants and approximately 5,000 Ace member stores unlawfully coordinated prices, exchanged competitively sensitive information, and allocated markets in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The proposed class includes purchasers from Ace member stores, Ace-owned stores, and acehardware.com.
Ace seeks to compel arbitration. On Aug. 3, Ace Hardware Corporation, Ace Retail Holdings LLC, and Ace Retail Group, Inc. moved to compel arbitration and stay the federal court proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act. The motion states that the parties conferred regarding the arbitration issues on July 30 and July 31 but were unable to resolve their differences. The defendants submitted a memorandum and supporting declaration in connection with the request.
Defendants seek joint dismissal of core antitrust allegations. In a separate filing, the Ace defendants and Epicor jointly moved to dismiss the complaint. The memorandum argues that the complaint fails to plausibly allege a conspiracy, market-allocation agreement, actionable information exchange, relevant product market, relevant geographic market, market power, or anticompetitive effects. The defendants contend that the complaint improperly characterizes cooperative services, including pricing tools, benchmarking reports, software support, and store-location review processes, as antitrust violations.
The memorandum describes Ace Hardware Corporation as a retailer-owned cooperative that provides wholesale purchasing, national advertising, supply-chain services, retail technology, and benchmarking tools to member stores. According to the filing, member stores remain independently owned and retain responsibility for setting their own retail prices.
Pricing agreement dispute. The joint memorandum argues that the complaint does not plead direct or circumstantial evidence of a horizontal agreement among defendants. According to the filing, Ace stores receive recommended pricing guidance organized through geographic price zones and price levels, but stores may choose whether to follow those recommendations and may set their own retail prices. The memorandum further asserts that the complaint identifies no enforcement mechanism compelling stores to adopt recommended prices.
The defendants also argue that allegations concerning common use of Epicor software, store meetings, benchmarking reports, and alleged opportunities to conspire do not plausibly establish an unlawful agreement. They further contend that inflation, supply-chain disruptions, COVID-era demand shocks, and tariffs provide alternative explanations for price increases referenced in the complaint.
Challenge to market-allocation claim. Addressing the complaint’s territorial-allocation count, the defendants argue that the pleading does not identify any agreement among stores to divide territories or refrain from competing. The memorandum states that Ace stores do not receive exclusive territories and that the cooperative added hundreds of stores in recent years. The filing further contends that the complaint does not identify specific territory boundaries, agreements among competing stores, or communications allocating markets.
Dispute over relevant market definitions. The defendants also challenge the complaint’s proposed market definitions. The memorandum argues that the alleged “convenience hardware” product market improperly excludes retailers such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, Menards, Walmart, Costco, Target, Amazon, and other sellers offering similar products. The filing further attacks the complaint’s proposed geographic markets, including local areas defined by a 15-minute driving radius around stores, Ace price zones, and metropolitan statistical areas. According to the defendants, those proposed markets do not reflect commercial realities and fail to account for competition from other retailers.
Epicor motion to dismiss. Epicor separately moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the complaint does not plausibly allege that the software company knowingly joined, intended to join, or materially contributed to any antitrust conspiracy. Epicor characterizes itself as a provider of enterprise-resource-planning and point-of-sale software used by retailers, including many but not all Ace stores.
According to Epicor, its Eagle software collects and transmits point-of-sale data and integrates with Ace systems, but neither the software nor Epicor determines retail prices or generates pricing recommendations. The company contends that the complaint alleges only that Epicor provided software products and related support services.
Epicor argues that the complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating that it knew of any conspiracy among Ace entities or Ace member stores, intended to restrain trade, or made a material contribution to the alleged scheme. The company further contends that Eagle merely transmits information and that any pricing recommendations described in the complaint were generated by Ace Hardware rather than Epicor.
Companies: Ace Hardware Corporation; Ace Retail Holdings LLC; Ace Retail Group, Inc.; Epicor Software Corporation
News: Antitrust FranchisingDistribution IllinoisNews