Verisign and ICANN .com domain price antitrust lawsuit (Kessler v. VeriSign)

A California domain owner filed a proposed class action on September 4, 2026, claiming that Verisign and ICANN have kept .com domain prices artificially high through a contract that gives Verisign a permanent hold on the .com registry. The case is Kessler v. VeriSign, Inc. and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, No. 2:26-cv-09960, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit targets the wholesale fee that every registrar pays Verisign for each .com registration and renewal, currently $10.26 a year according to the complaint. That fee is built into the price people pay at GoDaddy, Namecheap, Squarespace and other registrars. Verisign has told ICANN the fee will rise to $10.97 on November 1, 2026.

The complaint proposes a nationwide class seeking court orders and a California class that also seeks money damages. No court has ruled on the claims, and no class has been certified.

VeriSign, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Reston, Virginia. It is the sole operator of the .com and .net registries, the master databases that make every .com website and email address work. Its stock trades on the Nasdaq under the symbol VRSN.

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is a California nonprofit headquartered in Los Angeles. It oversees the domain name system and signs the .com Registry Agreement with Verisign.

The plaintiff is Jeff Kessler of California. According to the complaint, he owns six .com domains, including a wedding website and several domains that redirect to nonprofit and union websites. He says his Squarespace renewal fee rose from $12 to $15 a year in 2025, and that IONOS renewals cost him $20 a year.

He is represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Lawyers Christopher R. Pitoun and Rio S. Pierce filed the case, and the court admitted Ted Wojcik and Moses I. Jehng to appear from out of state.

The complaint tells a long history. Under a 2001 agreement, it says, Verisign's wholesale price was capped at $6.00 per domain and ICANN could rebid the contract. The complaint alleges that Verisign then pressured ICANN through litigation and other tactics, and that in 2006 ICANN signed a new agreement that let Verisign raise prices up to 7% in four of every six years and gave it a presumptive right of renewal. The complaint says ICANN's board approved that deal 9 to 5.

The complaint says later renewals and amendments in 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 kept those terms without competitive bidding. It alleges that a Department of Commerce pricing restriction was removed in 2018, and that when a 2020 amendment restored the 7% increases, more than 9,000 people submitted public comments and only seven supported it. Around the same time, the complaint says, Verisign agreed to pay ICANN an extra $20 million.

In November 2024, ICANN renewed the agreement through 2030. According to the complaint, the wholesale price has risen from $7.85 in 2021 to $10.26 today, more than 30%. It says Verisign's 2025 revenue was $1.656 billion, its cost is roughly $3.09 per domain and its operating margins exceed 67%. It also says comparable registries charge an average of about $5.21.

On April 23, 2026, Verisign wrote to ICANN that its fee for each year of a new or renewed .com registration, and for each transfer between registrars, would be $10.97 effective November 1, 2026. ICANN's published fee schedule lists the same amount.

The plaintiff argues that Verisign and ICANN unlawfully agreed to restrain trade and that Verisign illegally maintains a monopoly. He says ICANN has a financial stake in that monopoly because it receives payments tied to .com registrations. The complaint cites a 2010 federal appeals ruling, Coalition for ICANN Transparency v. VeriSign, which let similar antitrust claims against the .com agreement go forward.

The complaint brings claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Class Action Pulse found no public statement from Verisign or ICANN about the lawsuit. Neither defendant had filed an answer or motion as of October 19, 2026. Verisign's April 2026 notice to ICANN, which predates the lawsuit, cites Section 7.3(f) of the registry agreement as the basis for the next increase.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. and Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff. The docket shows the clerk issued summonses for both defendants on October 9, 2026. On October 15, the plaintiff filed a waiver of service signed for ICANN by a Jones Day lawyer. The waiver form gives ICANN 60 days from October 14, 2026, to answer or file a motion to dismiss.

The court has not decided whether Verisign holds an unlawful monopoly, whether the agreement violates antitrust law, whether prices are too high or whether a class should be certified.

The complaint proposes two groups:

• Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class: all persons or entities in the United States that paid for the renewal of one or more .com domain registrations from September 4, 2022, to the present.
• California Class: all persons or entities that paid for the renewal of one or more .com domain registrations while residing in California during the same period.

Both groups exclude the defendants and their affiliates, officers, directors and employees, all ICANN-accredited registrars, government entities, and the judges and jurors in the case.

The definitions cover renewals. Someone who registered a .com domain but never renewed it is not clearly described. Hagens Berman's case page invites anyone who registered or renewed since 2022 to contact the firm, but the court will rely on the complaint's definitions.

There is no claim form and no deadline. Domain owners can:

• Download renewal receipts or billing history from their registrar for September 2022 onward.
• Note which domains renewed and the price paid each year.
• Watch for a ruling on any motion to dismiss or for class certification.
• Contact Hagens Berman or their own lawyer with questions.

There is no money available. For the nationwide class, the complaint asks only for court orders, including an order barring enforcement of contract terms that stop ICANN from limiting .com prices. For the California class, it asks for damages, trebled where state law allows, along with restitution. Both groups seek interest and attorneys' fees. These are requests, not awards.

• September 4, 2026: complaint filed.
• October 9, 2026: summonses issued to Verisign and ICANN.
• October 14, 2026: waiver request sent to ICANN, starting its 60-day response window.
• November 1, 2026: .com wholesale fee scheduled to rise to $10.97.

No claim, opt-out or objection deadlines exist. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, notice would explain members' options.

• Registry: The organization that runs the master database for a top-level domain such as .com.
• Registrar: A retail company that sells domain names to the public and pays the registry a wholesale fee.
• Presumptive renewal: A contract term that renews the agreement automatically unless narrow conditions are met.
• Rule 23(b)(2) class: A class that seeks court orders rather than individual money awards.
• Treble damages: Damages tripled after proof of an antitrust violation, where the law allows.

The defendants are expected to respond, likely with motions to dismiss. Any ruling on whether the antitrust claims can proceed would be the next major step.

A practical note: renewal prices at your registrar may change after November 1, so saving this year's invoice now gives you a clean before-and-after record.

This article relies on the complaint, the court docket, the ICANN waiver of service, Verisign's April 23, 2026 letter to ICANN, ICANN's .com fee schedule, and the Hagens Berman case page.

The cost, margin, comparison and history claims come from the complaint and are allegations. Verisign's response date and any defense arguments are unknown. Class size and any recovery are unknown.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.