Bilinski v. Keith Haring Foundation, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 3d 35

Plaintiffs claim ownership of Keith Haring works and alleged the Foundation and related actors interfered with exhibition and sale, reducing property value.
Defendants include the Keith Haring Foundation, its officers/directors, Studio LLC, Estate of Keith Haring, and licensing/consulting entities; Gruen and Stark are compensation beneficiaries of the Foundation.
The Foundation historically authenticated Haring works via a Committee; it dissolved the Committee in 2012, affecting authentication of certain works.
The Bilinski Collection and other plaintiffs sought authentication and sale of Haring pieces; Foundation repeatedly rejected authentication and warned of action for misrepresentation.
In 2010-2011, Bilinski faced authentication disputes; by 2013, plaintiffs participated in the Miami Exhibition, which prompted the Miami Complaint and a Foundation-initiated suit and press release asserting fraud related to the exhibition.
The court consolidated two actions, treated the case as asserting federal antitrust and Lanham Act claims, and granted the motion to dismiss the entire complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Section 1 conspiracy in restraint of trade	Conspiracy among Foundation and allies restricted Haring market.	No credible interdependent conspiracy; actions were independent or lawful refusals to deal.	Section 1 claim dismissed; no plausible conspiracy shown.
Monopolization under Section 2	Foundation’s IP rights and lawsuits create monopoly power to exclude works.	Insufficient market power and no post-2011 market share; dissolution of Committee undermines monopoly claim.	Section 2 claim dismissed.
Lanham Act false advertising	Miami Complaint and Press Release mislead on authenticity and sales to manipulate market.	Statements do not constitute commercial speech tied to a potential transaction.	Lanham Act claim dismissed.
State law claims (privilege, defamation, interference, trade libel, IIED, unjust enrichment)	Statements in Miami Complaint and Press Release tortiously harmed plaintiffs.	Absolute privilege for judicial proceedings; fair reporting may apply; many claims lack proper damages or mischaracterize statements.	All state-law claims dismissed; court exercised supplemental jurisdiction but dismissed claims.

Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 2006) (antitrust restraint must be unreasonable to violate §1)
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Md. v. Citigroup, Inc., 709 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2013) (antitrust conspiracy requires plausible interdependence between distinct entities)
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (Supreme Court 1988) (standard-setting organizations and antitrust implications)
Simon-Whelan v. Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc., 2009 WL 1457177 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (context of authentication and marketplace controls in art world)
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court 1984) (requires concerted action between separate entities for §1 claim)
Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, 560 U.S. 190 (Supreme Court 2010) (economic alliances within single organization; competitive reality matters)
Pepsico, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (monopoly power requires market power and improper acquisition or maintenance)
Grinnell Corp. v. United States, 384 U.S. 563 (Supreme Court 1966) (monopoly power and antitrust standards for §2 claims)
Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. v. Fendi USA, Inc., 314 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2002) (trade libel and damages requirements for disparagement of goods)
Ruder & Finn Inc. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 N.Y.2d 663 (1981) (defamation distinctions between person and product;)