The peer review antitrust lawsuit is Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V. et al., a federal class action filed in September 2024 accusing six of the world’s largest academic publishers of colluding to keep peer review unpaid and to impose rules that restrict how researchers submit and share their work. A federal judge in the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case on January 30, 2026. The plaintiffs have asked the Second Circuit to revive it, and that appeal is pending.1Law360. Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V., Second Circuit Appeal
Who Sued Whom
The suit was filed on September 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-06409) by Lieff Cabraser and Justice Catalyst Law. The lead plaintiff is Lucina Uddin, a neuroscience professor at UCLA.2Reuters. Academic Publishers Face Class Action Over Peer Review Pay, Other Restrictions The defendants are Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publications, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wolters Kluwer, along with their trade association, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM).3Authors Alliance. Antitrust Lawsuit Filed Against Large Academic Publishers
The complaint sought class-action status for anyone in the United States who had submitted a manuscript to, or peer-reviewed for, any of the defendants’ journals since September 12, 2020. The plaintiffs estimated that class at “hundreds of thousands” of researchers.2Reuters. Academic Publishers Face Class Action Over Peer Review Pay, Other Restrictions
What the Lawsuit Claimed
The plaintiffs invoked Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements to restrain trade. They argued that STM’s 2013 “International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication” was the vehicle through which the six publishers coordinated a “three-part scheme.”3Authors Alliance. Antitrust Lawsuit Filed Against Large Academic Publishers
The first practice was unpaid peer review. The publishers allegedly agreed to fix the price of that labor at zero, then made it a condition of publishing in major journals — coercing researchers into providing free reviews if they wanted their own work considered.4Lieff Cabraser. Academic Journal Publishers Antitrust Litigation
The second was a single-submission rule. Researchers had to submit a manuscript to only one journal at a time, which the plaintiffs said removed any competitive pressure on publishers to review and decide quickly.3Authors Alliance. Antitrust Lawsuit Filed Against Large Academic Publishers
The third was a gag rule. Researchers were allegedly prohibited from sharing the findings in a manuscript while it was under review, and once a paper was accepted, they were often required to sign over their intellectual property rights without compensation.4Lieff Cabraser. Academic Journal Publishers Antitrust Litigation
The Money Argument
The complaint framed the industry’s economics as a “triple pay system.” Taxpayers fund the underlying research through government grants, pay the salaries of the scientists who then peer-review it for free, and pay again when universities buy expensive subscriptions to read the results.4Lieff Cabraser. Academic Journal Publishers Antitrust Litigation The defendants collectively generated more than $10 billion in revenue from peer-reviewed journals in 2023, according to the complaint, with Elsevier alone bringing in $3.8 billion at a 38% operating profit margin.5Publishers Weekly. Academic Publishers Hit With Antitrust Suit Over Peer Review
The plaintiffs sought treble damages and an injunction dissolving the challenged agreements, arguing the practices had produced a “peer-review crisis” slowing progress in fields from cancer treatment to climate change.4Lieff Cabraser. Academic Journal Publishers Antitrust Litigation
How the Publishers Responded
The defendants argued that non-payment for peer review, single-submission policies, and confidentiality rules reflected longstanding, independent business norms, not a conspiracy. They characterized the STM guidelines as ethical standards for scholarly publishing rather than a cartel agreement.6UKSG. Academic Publishers Defeat Lawsuit Over Peer Review Pay, Other Restrictions In a February 2025 letter previewing their motion to dismiss, they argued the practices served legitimate purposes, including preventing wasted editorial resources.7STAT News. Peer Review Antitrust Lawsuit: Academic Scientific Journals Sued by Scientists
Several defendants also raised a jurisdictional defense. Foreign-domiciled parents such as Elsevier B.V. (Dutch) and Wolters Kluwer N.V. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court later noted that the amended complaint grouped distinct domestic and foreign corporate entities under single names, making it hard to establish that the foreign defendants had sufficient U.S. contacts to be sued in New York.8Justia. Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V. et al., Order on Motions to Dismiss
Why the Case Was Dismissed
On January 30, 2026, Judge Hector Gonzalez granted both motions to dismiss. He held that the foreign defendants were not subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction and that the complaint as a whole failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. In antitrust terms, the plaintiffs had not alleged enough facts to make an unlawful conspiracy plausible. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.8Justia. Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V. et al., Order on Motions to Dismiss
The Appeal to the Second Circuit
The plaintiffs did not treat the dismissal as the end of the case. On June 12, 2026, they asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to revive the class action (Case No. 26-457). They argued that the district court improperly credited the publishers’ written rules at face value and disregarded evidence about how those rules were actually implemented and enforced in practice.1Law360. Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V., Second Circuit Appeal The appeal is pending, and unless the Second Circuit reverses, the January 2026 dismissal stands.