A federal judge last week tossed an antitrust lawsuit targeting six of the largest academic publishers, ending a direct legal challenge to common peer-review and submission practices. U.S. District Judge Hector Gonzalez ruled the complaint lacked direct evidence of a conspiracy, rejecting claims that Elsevier, Wiley, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Sage and Wolters Kluwer colluded to fix the price of peer review labor. Plaintiff Lucina Uddin and three academic co-plaintiffs had argued that publishers and their trade group, STM, institutionalized unpaid peer review and restricted submission and sharing practices. The suit sought class-action status for academics who performed peer review or submitted manuscripts since 2020. Judge Gonzalez found the complaint relied on inference rather than direct proof. The ruling removes an immediate courtroom threat to prevailing journal practices but leaves open questions about academic labor and the economics of scholarly publishing. Universities, library consortia and faculty governance bodies that have pressured publishers on pricing and open access will watch appeals and any renewed litigation closely.