How One Company Controlled Who Gets to Sell Medicine Online | LegitScript LLC

A multibillion-dollar gatekeeping apparatus has been quietly shaping which online pharmacies Americans can find, and which vanish from view. Behind this moral façade of “safety verification,” the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found something more systemic: a corporate network using drug safety rhetoric to strangle competition.

The legal case PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. LegitScript LLC (2025) reveals how one evil company’s control over what counts as a “legitimate pharmacy” became a tool to block access, distort markets, and fortify monopoly power in online drug verification.

And guess what I’m going to be writing about here in this article 😀

A Pattern of Suppression: How the System Failed

• The Players: PharmacyChecker.com accredits online pharmacies and compares global drug prices. LegitScript, its competitor, provides “verification and monitoring” services and influences who gets labeled as safe or unsafe.
• The Allegation: LegitScript and allied trade groups formed a group boycott. They were colluding to blacklist PharmacyChecker from key internet domains, advertising channels, and search visibility.
• The Mechanics:
  • LegitScript and partners allegedly pressured entities like Microsoft to display warning boxes whenever users clicked on PharmacyChecker links.
  • They created the “.pharmacy” internet domain, excluding competitors and controlling access to the web’s trust signals.
  • They circulated “Not Recommended Sites” lists targeting PharmacyChecker, effectively erasing it from public visibility.
• The Market Impact: PharmacyChecker’s revenue (largely from pharmacies outside the U.S.) collapsed as traffic and visibility plummeted.
• The Defense: LegitScript claimed PharmacyChecker had no right to antitrust protection because its business “facilitated illegal importation” of foreign drugs.
• The Ruling: The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, affirming that even if some activity was unlawful, antitrust enforcement cannot be blocked by moral posturing. As the court wrote: “Two wrongs don’t make a right. Nor do they necessarily cancel each other out.”

The Ripple Effects

The Economic Fallout

By branding competitors as unsafe, LegitScript’s network allegedly controlled online pharmacy accreditation, an industry critical to how consumers (and even search engines) decide where to buy medicine. The economic result: a consolidated verification monopoly that could dictate market access. Smaller pharmacy verifiers were effectively priced out or silenced.

The Public Health Crisis

While framed as a safety crusade, the practical effect was reduced visibility of affordable medication sources. Consumers (especially the uninsured) faced higher costs as legitimate foreign pharmacies were pushed into obscurity.

The court noted that only 3.47% of clicks from PharmacyChecker’s site led to purchases, yet the boycott’s impact fell on millions seeking lower-cost drugs.

The digital infrastructure itself- gatekeeping through search results and domain registries- creates a closed ecosystem where a few players control global pharmaceutical information flow, echoing monopolies which shape the physical drug supply chain.

The Erosion of Trust

Perhaps the deepest consequence: the weaponization of “safety” to maintain market dominance. The case exposes how corporate and regulatory credibility can be co-opted to disguise anti-competitive behavior. The same systems meant to protect consumers became tools for exclusion, undermining trust in both industry oversight and the language of online safety itself.

The Bottom Line: Accountability Deferred

The Ninth Circuit’s decision doesn’t actually punish LegitScript, it simply allows PharmacyChecker’s case to proceed. Yet its broader message is damning: “safety” cannot be used as a shield for monopolistic control.
The court reaffirmed a core principle of U.S. antitrust law: even imperfect actors (those accused of minor or tangential wrongdoing) must be allowed to challenge systemic abuse, lest entire markets be silenced under the guise of morality.

This ruling is ultimately about who controls the public’s access to medicine.

The bigger question now looms: if private profit maximizing corporations can weaponize “trust” labels to define legitimacy, what happens to competition-and to consumers- when truth itself gets gated off?