A federal jury in Boston returned a verdict on May 18, 2026, against Takeda Pharmaceutical USA Inc. in a class-action antitrust case arising from an alleged reverse-payment scheme to suppress generic competition for Amitiza, a prescription drug used to treat chronic idiopathic constipation [1][4]. The litigation, consolidated as In re Amitiza Antitrust Litigation under docket No. 21-cv-11057 in the District of Massachusetts, brought claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act by a direct purchaser class, an end-payor class, and individual retailer plaintiffs including CVS Health and Walgreens Boots Alliance [1][2]. Plaintiffs alleged that Takeda entered an unlawful reverse-payment agreement with Par Pharmaceutical Inc., the generic challenger, to delay Par's generic entry in exchange for value, extending Takeda's period of exclusivity beyond what patent litigation alone would have produced [4].
Trial evidence centered on the structure and terms of the settlement between Takeda and Par, and whether the payment from the branded manufacturer to the generic challenger was large enough, and unjustified enough by independent consideration, to constitute the kind of anticompetitive arrangement the Supreme Court identified as presumptively suspect in FTC v. Actavis (2013) [4][5]. The jury found for the plaintiffs on those claims. Total single damages across all plaintiff groups reached $884,943,990, a figure Takeda confirmed in its own regulatory disclosure [3]. The direct purchaser class received $474.9 million, the end-payor class received $63.2 million, and individual retailer plaintiffs received additional awards making up the remainder [1][2].
Because the case sounds in federal antitrust law, the Sherman Act mandates trebling of damages upon entry of judgment [4]. If the court applies the statutory multiplier to the full single-damages award, Takeda's exposure rises to approximately $2.6 billion before attorneys' fees and costs [1][4]. Takeda stated it is revising its FY2025 financial results to reflect the verdict and indicated it intends to challenge the outcome [3].
The verdict carries significance beyond this case. Plaintiffs' counsel at Hagens Berman described it as the first plaintiff's verdict in a class-action pay-for-delay pharmaceutical antitrust trial since the Supreme Court's Actavis ruling created the modern framework for such claims in 2013 [1]. Three prior pay-for-delay trials since Actavis ended in defense verdicts [1][5]. Takeda's post-trial motions and any appeal will be closely watched as a test of whether the Actavis standard, as applied by juries rather than judges, can sustain large antitrust verdicts in the pharmaceutical context.