image courtesy of CNBC
A federal judge is allowing a key antitrust lawsuit against Epic Systems to move forward, while dismissing several other claims brought against the Wisconsin-based health software company.
Particle Health, a health data startup based in New York, filed the suit in federal court last year, accusing Epic of violating antitrust laws and defaming the company.
Epic, based in Verona, Wisconsin, operates the most widely used electronic health records platform in the United States, according to a ruling issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.
The lawsuit alleges Epic leveraged its dominance in the electronic health records market to expand into the emerging payer platform space. Payer platforms allow insurance companies to request and access electronic health records. Epic entered that market in 2021, Particle followed in 2023.
Particle claims Epic retaliated by blocking customers from accessing its health records network and by slowing approval processes for new Particle clients. The suit also accuses Epic of making false statements about Particle mishandling data and of pressuring customers to sever ties with the company.
Epic sought to dismiss the lawsuit in full. While the court rejected some of Particle’s claims, including those related to defamation, trade libel and conspiracy, it ruled that the company’s monopolization and antitrust allegations could proceed.
“Although Particle names certain customers who ceased their relationships with Particle, it does not specifically allege that these customers abandoned their relationships with Particle based on the two allegedly libelous statements identified in the complaint,” Buchwald wrote.
However, the judge found that Particle had adequately alleged harm to both its business and to competition in the payer platform market.
“Particle has alleged that it has lost both customers and revenue as a result of Epic’s conduct, and that this conduct has harmed competition in the payer platform market as a whole,” Buchwald wrote. “It remains to be seen whether Particle’s allegations will be borne out in discovery.”
Peter Carstensen, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School and an expert in antitrust law, said the early stages of the case will likely focus on whether the payer platform market qualifies as a distinct market.
“If Particle can’t establish the plausibility of that market, such that the judge believes a reasonable jury could find that there is such a market, then the case is over,” Carstensen said.
“If the judge is satisfied of that, then the next step is to look at the conduct and the question of whether the conduct was unlawful, or whether there were justifications for Epic’s conduct.”
Buchwald noted that Epic and Particle disagree on whether their products perform similar functions, and that further discovery should help clarify those issues.
Both companies framed the ruling as a win.
An Epic spokesperson said in a statement that the court dismissed most of Particle’s claims.
“Epic has worked and will continue to work to protect the privacy of patients’ data,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to the opportunity to present evidence to prevail on the remaining claims.”
Particle CEO Jason Prestinario said on social media that he was pleased with the decision, calling it a milestone in holding Epic accountable.
“This is the first time in Epic’s history that an antitrust case against them has gotten to this point,” Prestinario wrote. “It’s the next step to a bigger victory for better patient care and more patient control of their medical info.”
Carstensen said the case is significant because Epic has rarely faced successful legal challenges despite its dominance in the health tech space.
“It shows that these same issues arise in all kinds of other fields where there is a dominant firm,” he said, comparing the case to antitrust actions against major tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon.
The lawsuit is not the only legal challenge Epic faces. Earlier this year, California-based CureIs, which partners with managed care organizations, filed a similar antitrust case in federal court.
“If the judge is satisfied of that, then the next step is to look at the conduct and the question of whether the conduct was unlawful, or whether there were justifications for Epic’s conduct.”
Buchwald noted that Epic and Particle disagree on whether their products perform similar functions, and that further discovery should help clarify those issues.
Both companies framed the ruling as a win.
An Epic spokesperson said in a statement that the court dismissed most of Particle’s claims.
“Epic has worked and will continue to work to protect the privacy of patients’ data,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to the opportunity to present evidence to prevail on the remaining claims.”
Particle CEO Jason Prestinario said on social media that he was pleased with the decision, calling it a milestone in holding Epic accountable.
“This is the first time in Epic’s history that an antitrust case against them has gotten to this point,” Prestinario wrote. “It’s the next step to a bigger victory for better patient care and more patient control of their medical info.”
Carstensen said the case is significant because Epic has rarely faced successful legal challenges despite its dominance in the health tech space.
“It shows that these same issues arise in all kinds of other fields where there is a dominant firm,” he said, comparing the case to antitrust actions against major tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon.
The lawsuit is not the only legal challenge Epic faces. Earlier this year, California-based CureIs, which partners with managed care organizations, filed a similar antitrust case in federal court.