Copeland v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 716 F.Supp.3d 749

Plaintiffs (consumers and a competitor retailer) allege Energizer Holdings and Walmart entered into an agreement where Walmart controlled retail prices for Energizer products nationwide, violating federal and state antitrust laws.
Together, Energizer and Duracell dominate the U.S. disposable battery market, with high barriers to entry and declining market demand.
Plaintiffs allege that since 2018, Energizer manipulated wholesale prices for other retailers to ensure they could not undercut Walmart, with evidence including internal emails and price monitoring practices.
Plaintiffs claim this agreement led to widespread increases in both wholesale and retail battery prices, affecting not just Energizer but also Duracell prices at Walmart.
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing insufficient facts of an agreement, failure to allege harm to competition, and lack of standing for certain plaintiffs.
The court was evaluating the sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), taking plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of Agreement	Energizer and Walmart coordinated to fix prices benefiting both	No specific agreement; actions could be unilateral	Sufficient facts alleged to plausibly infer an agreement
Unreasonable Restraint on Trade	Agreement harmed competition—raising prices and constraining retail competition	No harm; Energizer could take similar actions alone lawfully	Plaintiffs adequately alleged harm to competition
Antitrust Standing (Schuman Class)	Walmart customers injured by paying higher prices due to the agreement	Injury too indirect/speculative; chain of causation broken	Walmart customers have standing—harm is direct and flows from the alleged conduct
State Law Claims	Same conduct violates state antitrust & consumer protection laws	Plaintiffs lack standing for out-of-state claims; federal claims fail so state claims must fail	Article III standing present; adequacy of Sherman Act claim supports state claims

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility in complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for antitrust conspiracy)
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (rule of reason for vertical price restraints)
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946 (rule of reason and market definition)
Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028 (standard to construe pleadings favorably at motion to dismiss)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (fair notice and enabling defense standard in complaints)
In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., 798 F.3d 1186 (circumstantial evidence can suffice for inferring agreement)
The Jeanery, Inc. v. James Jeans, Inc., 849 F.2d 1148 (unilateral conduct is not unlawful under Sherman Act § 1)