Loop LLC v. CDK Global, LLC, 3:24-cv-00571

Background

This is a class action antitrust case brought by Loop LLC (d/b/a AutoLoop) and others against CDK Global, LLC, scheduled for trial on January 27, 2025, in the Western District of Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs allege CDK and Reynolds conspired to restrict access by independent data integrators to their dealer management systems (DMS), harming competition in the market for data integration services.
The parties filed extensive motions in limine addressing the admissibility of evidence related to security justifications, damages, profits, vendor practices, and evidence spoliation.
The court’s rulings closely follow prior decisions made in multidistrict litigation (MDL) on similar factual and legal questions regarding antitrust injury and authorization for DMS access.
Key evidentiary disputes include the relevance of violations of the CFAA/DMCA, duty to mitigate damages, state and industry-specific data access laws, evidence of vendor and defendant conduct, and appropriate sanctions for loss of evidence.
The court denies, grants, or reserves rulings on various motions, clarifying admissible evidence and requiring the parties to further address certain unresolved questions at a final pretrial conference.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of CFAA/DMCA violations as defense	Evidence is irrelevant and would lead to prejudicial mini-trials	CDK argues legality of access is relevant to antitrust injury	Excluded: CFAA/DMCA violations irrelevant to jury's antitrust injury
Evidence of pass-on damages	Should not allow evidence implying damages reduction due to vendors passing on fees	Fee waivers relevant to pricing competition, not direct pass-on defense	Fee waivers allowed, not specific pass-on damages
Duty to mitigate antitrust damages	Duty is inapplicable in horizontal conspiracy cases	Mitigation principles may apply, not limited to price-fixing cases	Mitigation argument allowed; jury to decide reasonableness
Vendor profitability relevance	Irrelevant to damages or liability; risks prejudice	Could be relevant for impeachment or bargaining power	Excluded: No specific, relevant evidence identified by defendant
Sales of customer data by vendors	Not relevant to security, prejudicial as conduct predated conspiracy	Shows CDK's valid security justification for restricting access	Excluded under Rule 403: minimal probative value, high prejudice
Sanctions for CDK’s failure to preserve emails	Jury should be instructed and CDK evidence post-2019 limited	Sanctions should be limited; most relevant emails recovered, destruction unintentional	Jury will be informed of missing emails; further sanctions reserved
Effect of state dealer data access laws	Show alternatives to CDK’s restrictive practices exist (dealers can share data)	Laws irrelevant, testimony likely to confuse issues	Excluded expert opinion, reserved on evidence of laws’ actual effect
Data portability laws in other industries	Relevant to show safe third-party integration common elsewhere	Laws irrelevant, risk of confusion	Excluded all evidence on these laws
Authenticom settlement relevance	Explains Authenticom’s survival; rebuts inferences CDK did not harm competition	Introduction of lawsuit/settlement is prejudicial	Excluded unless CDK puts Authenticom’s survival at issue
June 2024 cyberattack	Relevant to showing CDK’s security justifications are pretextual	Risks confusion, mini-trials, unfair prejudice	Tentatively excluded; may allow limited evidence after conference
Judicial notice—Brockman emails	Necessary to explain missing evidence and potential email destruction	Prejudicial, speculative, not directly relevant without further evidence	Parties may stipulate to lack of pre-2016 Brockman emails
Witnesses: Stejskal (expert/fact) and Kwiatkowski	Stejskal’s dual role manageable; Kwiatkowski’s testimony cumulative	Stejskal’s roles confusing/cumulative; Kwiatkowski untimely disclosed	Stejskal: reserved; Kwiatkowski: excluded for untimely disclosure
Motion to quash subpoena (Workman)	Objection to service and burden, not a party and lives outside radius	Proper service, material witness, within subpoena radius	Quash denied; must testify

Key Cases Cited

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1968) (pass-on defense not available in antitrust for direct purchasers)
Paper Systems Inc. v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd., 281 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2002) (followed Hanover Shoe rule on damages)
Fishman v. Estate of Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1986) (mitigation of damages can apply in antitrust)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1992) (single-brand markets under specific circumstances)