Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca attorneys Amanda Lewis, Christian Hudson, Zachary Freed, and Vienna Chan, with support from paralegal Nick Xu, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) in support ofSummit 360, Inc.’s appeal before the Eighth Circuit against Cisco Systems, Inc.
The case stems from a lawsuit that Summit 360, an independent reseller of networking hardware, brought against Cisco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In March 2026, the district court dismissed Summit's antitrust claims, holding that antitrust standing is generally limited to competitors and consumers, and that Summit did not fall within either of those categories. Summit appealed that ruling to the Eighth Circuit, arguing the district court's approach was unduly narrow and inconsistent with the law.
According to the amicus brief, independent resellers like Summit are often the first to detect anticompetitive conduct, acting as "the canary in the coal mine," and making them a critical source of private antitrust enforcement. U.S. PIRG warns that cutting off standing for companies like Summit would weaken deterrence and let harm to consumers go unchecked.
The brief also connects the case to U.S. PIRG’s right-to-repair campaign, citing the FTC's recent settlement with Deere & Company over restricted repair access and a $147 million jury verdict against Biosense Webster for withholding support from hospitals using reprocessed medical devices as examples of the similar patterns playing out across multiple industries. According to the brief, “An unduly narrow and rigid interpretation of antitrust standing poses a threat to deterrence and accountability for firms that impose unlawful restrictions on other market participants in the right to repair context and beyond.”
Read the full brief here.