GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Manager (No. II)

The GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Manager Antitrust Litigation (No. II) consolidates claims alleging that arrangements between GoodRx and pharmacy benefit managers restrained competition in prescription drug pricing, to the detriment of consumers and pharmacies that rely on discount-card and PBM-negotiated pricing. The Judicial Panel centralized the docket before Judge Mary S. McElroy in the District of Rhode Island in April 2025; with 32 actions now pending, the litigation is still in its early pretrial phase, with consolidated pleadings and case-management structure taking shape.

At this stage, funding availability mirrors most early-phase antitrust MDLs: without a certified class or an agreed damages framework, there isn't yet a standardized basis for pricing individual claims. What is available is firm-level litigation finance, structured against the costs of coordinated discovery and motion practice rather than against expected claim recovery, which remains too uncertain to underwrite at this point.

Plaintiff-side inventory in a docket like this typically comes from two different populations — consumers who paid discount-card prices and pharmacies whose reimbursement was affected by the challenged arrangements — and those populations may end up on different certification and damages tracks. A firm building a book of either type of claimant should expect portfolio-level finance to become more available once the court resolves how those tracks proceed and what damages model each supports. There is no medical-lien dimension to this docket; it is a pricing and reimbursement dispute, not a personal-injury matter, so structuring turns on purchaser type, claim volume, and duration risk through certification. Pharmacy-side claims in particular tend to carry better-documented reimbursement histories than consumer discount-card claims, which can make them the more tractable population for early diligence even before the broader certification question is resolved.

Criterica Capital's commercial litigation finance product fits firms and claimant groups navigating this docket's early phase. A structure and litigation brief on the case's procedural posture is also available for teams evaluating capital ahead of the certification fight.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.