In December 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Epic Systems Corporation, the Wisconsin company whose electronic health record software holds data on more than 325 million patients. The Epic Texas lawsuit alleges that the company illegally monopolized the electronic health records market by gatekeeping patient data, locking hospitals into punitive contracts, and squeezing out competitors. A separate set of claims accuses Epic of shipping software preconfigured to cut off parents’ access to their children’s medical records at age 12. Epic denies all of it and has moved to fight the case to dismissal.1WPR. Texas Sues Wisconsin-Based Epic Systems, Accusing Monopoly
Where the Case Was Filed and Under What Laws
Paxton filed the complaint on December 10, 2025, in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, docket number 236-372872-25. Epic Systems Corporation is the sole defendant; no individual executives are named.2NAAG. Texas v. Epic Systems Corp.
The state chose to bring the case entirely under Texas law, invoking three statutes: the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act. Federal Sherman Act claims were deliberately left out to keep the case in state court and block Epic from removing it to federal jurisdiction.3Fierce Healthcare. Texas AG Sues Epic Alleging Company Monopolizes EHR Market, Restricts Parent Access
Epic’s market position sits behind the case. Its databases cover roughly 90% of the American population, and as of 2024 the company held about 42% of the acute-care hospital EHR market, rising to around 60% among large health systems and academic medical centers.4Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Major Medical Record Database for Gatekeeping Data and Restricting5MedPage Today. Epic’s Antitrust Paradox6Forbes. Epic’s Antitrust Paradox: Who Should Control the Levers of Healthcare Innovation
What Texas Says Epic Did to Monopolize the Market
The heart of the complaint is that Epic operates as a gatekeeper over patient data it does not own, deciding who can access it, when, and on what terms.7Medical Economics. Epic Monopoly on EHRs Is Hurting U.S. Health Care, Texas AG Says The state describes an “anticompetitive playbook” built from several overlapping practices.
On data blocking, Texas alleges Epic delays or denies competing firms access to records stored in its system even when the hospitals themselves want the data shared. The state claims Epic can effectively veto a hospital’s decision to work with a third-party developer by refusing to supply the necessary programming interfaces.
On customer lock-in, the complaint calls switching away from Epic “almost impossible.” A transition can take up to a decade and cost more than a billion dollars. The state points to Memorial Hermann Health System’s 2024 move to Epic as an illustration: roughly $500 million in total costs — $330 million in capital expenses and $170 million in operating costs — for a 24-month implementation across 15 hospitals and 250 care sites.8Source on Healthcare. State of Texas v. Epic Systems: Heightened Scrutiny of Healthcare Market Dominance9Becker’s Hospital Review. Memorial Hermann’s $500M EHR Overhaul Beyond the raw cost, the complaint says Epic imposes penalty fees on hospitals that try to use competing applications and offers “honor roll” discounts only to customers who use Epic products exclusively.
On pricing, Texas characterizes Epic as the highest-cost EHR vendor and alleges the company uses its financial resources to absorb losses on new products, undercutting competitors while keeping prices high for its core offerings.
The complaint also alleges Epic restrains employment through restrictive agreements that limit where current and former employees can work.
According to the state, the downstream effects fall on hospitals and patients. Physicians allegedly receive incomplete or out-of-date records when patients seek care outside the Epic ecosystem. Epic’s control over programming interfaces, Texas argues, prevents hospitals from adopting new tools, including artificial intelligence applications, that could improve efficiency and cut costs. Rural and under-staffed hospitals are singled out as carrying an especially heavy financial burden. The complaint further ties the complexity of Epic’s software to clinician burnout.10HFMA. Epic Lawsuit Filed by Texas Aims to Help Health System Finances
The Parental Access Claims
The second track of the lawsuit sits under the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act. Texas alleges Epic sold software to Texas healthcare providers that was preconfigured to automatically restrict parental access to a child’s medication lists, treatment notes, and provider messages once the child turned 12. Section 183.006 of the Texas Health and Safety Code guarantees parents “complete and unrestricted access” to their children’s medical records.4Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Major Medical Record Database for Gatekeeping Data and Restricting
The issue had already surfaced in Texas before this filing. In October 2025, Paxton’s office settled with Austin Diagnostic Clinic after an investigation found the clinic’s EHR system locked parents out of children’s accounts at age 12 and required a “lengthy and confusing consent process” to restore access. Under the settlement, the clinic agreed to provide parents full, real-time electronic access.11Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures Landmark Agreement With Central Texas Medical Provider to Protect The state has issued civil investigative demands to other EHR providers as part of a broader inquiry.3Fierce Healthcare. Texas AG Sues Epic Alleging Company Monopolizes EHR Market, Restricts Parent Access
What Texas Wants From the Court
The state is asking for injunctive orders requiring Epic to stop the alleged conduct, structural remedies to restore competition in the EHR market, and civil penalties and monetary damages.8Source on Healthcare. State of Texas v. Epic Systems: Heightened Scrutiny of Healthcare Market Dominance In antitrust cases, the phrase “structural remedies” typically signals a demand for changes to how a business is organized and operates, not just a fine.
How Epic Is Fighting Back
Epic filed its formal response on January 20, 2026, in Tarrant County District Court. The company denied every allegation, said it would move to dismiss the entire case, and asserted the state “cannot support any of its claims as a matter of law.” The filing ran 26 pages and included 29 affirmative defenses.12Healthcare IT News. Epic Challenges Validity of Texas AG’s Antitrust Lawsuit13Fierce Healthcare. Epic Fires Back at Texas AG Lawsuit, Argues Anticompetitive Behavior Allegations Are Baseless
Epic argues it is not a gatekeeper. Under HIPAA, its healthcare provider customers, not Epic, are the legal custodians of medical records. Hospitals run their own local instances of the software and decide who can access patient data. The company describes its software as “highly configurable,” so customers set it up to meet whatever compliance obligations apply to them.
Epic also argues the state failed to properly define the relevant product market, which it calls a threshold requirement for a monopolization claim. Without that definition, Epic says, the antitrust claims fail as a matter of law.
On interoperability, the company points to customers exchanging over 725 million medical records per month, more than half of them involving non-Epic systems. Epic cites its founding role in the Carequality framework, its early participation in the federal Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA), a public library of over 500 programming interfaces, and more than 1,500 third-party applications that connect to its systems.
On parental access, Epic says the state’s six-month investigation did not identify a single instance where a parent was actually denied access to a child’s records because of Epic’s software, and notes that it provided Texas customers with compliance guides before the state law took effect.
Epic further contends that antitrust law does not compel a company to share its proprietary software or internal know-how with competitors. The company accused the state of relying on “dated, biased press articles and blog posts” along with unproven allegations from private lawsuits, called the parental access claims a “politicized issue,” and said it will “aggressively litigate this case to its full dismissal.” Epic is also seeking reimbursement of its legal fees from Texas.14WMTV. Epic Argues Claims in Lawsuit From Texas AG Are Baseless
Where the Case Stands Now
As of mid-2026, the case is still in its early stages. Epic filed its answer and affirmative defenses in January 2026 and has signaled a motion to dismiss. No ruling on that motion, no discovery schedule, and no trial date appear in the available record. The matter remains in Tarrant County District Court.12Healthcare IT News. Epic Challenges Validity of Texas AG’s Antitrust Lawsuit
Other Lawsuits Making Similar Claims Against Epic
Texas is not alone in accusing Epic of anticompetitive conduct. Two private federal cases have raised overlapping themes.
Particle Health v. Epic Systems
In September 2024, health data startup Particle Health sued Epic in the Southern District of New York. Particle alleges that after Epic discovered in late 2023 that Particle was integrating services for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Epic filed a formal dispute through an industry resolution process and stopped responding to data retrieval requests from about 20% of Particle’s customer base. A new approval requirement allegedly slowed Particle’s customer onboarding from under two days to over a month.15WPR. Order on Motion to Dismiss, Particle Health v. Epic Systems
In September 2025, Judge Naomi Buchwald let Particle’s Sherman Act monopoly claims proceed to discovery while dismissing its claims of contract interference, defamation, and trade libel.16STAT News. Epic, Particle Health Monopoly Antitrust Discovery EHR The case remained active as of June 2026.17CourtListener. Particle Health Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation
CureIS Healthcare v. Epic Systems
In May 2025, managed care services company CureIS Healthcare filed a 40-page complaint in the Northern District of California alleging Epic ran a “multi-prong scheme to destroy” its business, including coercing shared customers into dropping CureIS, blocking data access, misrepresenting Epic’s competing products, false advertising, and trade secret misappropriation.18CNBC. CureIS Healthcare Sues Epic Systems Alleging Scheme to Destroy19WPR. Lawsuit: Epic Systems Multi-Prong Scheme to Destroy Health Competitor CureIS The docket shows the case was terminated in November 2025 and identifies it as a trademark action under the Lanham Act rather than an antitrust case; the reasons for termination are not detailed in the available record.20CourtListener. CureIS Healthcare Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation