"Supreme Court Reverses Massive Antitrust Class Action Against Comcast"

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contact

On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, reversed a sprawling class action encompassing more than 2 million current and former Comcast subscribers who alleged violations of federal antitrust laws. See Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11-864, 569 U.S. __ (2013). In so doing, the Court resolved two critical questions for class action practitioners, concluding that: (1) the “rigorous analysis” requirement enunciated in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), applies to both the Rule 23(a) factors, as well as the Rule 23(b) prerequisites; and (2) there must be a method put forth by plaintiffs sufficient to calculate damages on a classwide basis in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions.

In Comcast, the plaintiffs alleged that Comcast entered into unlawful swap agreements in violation of federal antitrust laws, which caused injury by eliminating competition and causing prices to remain above competitive levels. Comcast, slip op. at 2. While the plaintiffs proposed four theories of antitrust impact, each of which supposedly increased cable rates, the district court limited them to “the theory that Comcast engaged in anticompetitive clustering conduct, the effect of which was to deter the entry of overbuilders in the Philadelphia DMA.” Id. at 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court proceeded to certify the class, finding that damages based on this theory — overbuilder-deterrence impact — could be calculated on a classwide basis, even though the model employed by plaintiffs’ expert “did not isolate damages resulting from any one theory of antitrust impact.” Id. at 4. The Third Circuit affirmed the class certification ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 4, 6.

Rigorous Analysis and Merits Inquiry Apply to Rule 23(b)(3)

In reversing the lower courts’ decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia, reiterated its command that “a party seeking to maintain a class action ‘must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance’ with Rule 23.” Comcast, slip op. at 5 (quoting Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551). The Court emphasized that Rule 23 requires not only affirmative proof that “‘there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact,’ typicality of claims or defenses, and adequacy of representation, as required by Rule 23(a),” but also that the party “satisfy through evidentiary proof at least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b).” Id. at 5-6 (citation omitted).

Consistent with this principle, the Court also reaffirmed its instruction in Dukes that such an analysis of each of the Rule 23 prerequisites must be “rigorous,” which may require a trial court “‘to probe behind the pleadings,’” and which “will frequently entail ‘overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.’” Id. (citations omitted). In so doing, the Court made clear that these “analytical principles” are not just limited to Rule 23(a); rather, they also “govern Rule 23(b).” Id. at 6. After all, the Court reasoned, limiting this framework to Rule 23(a) would make little sense given that “Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance criterion is even more demanding than Rule 23(a)” and is an “‘adventuresome innovation’” that “is designed for situations ‘in which class-action treatment is not as clearly called for.’” Id. (citations omitted). In light of these distinctions — and the unique “procedural safeguards” reserved for Rule 23(b)(3) class actions — the Court confirmed that a trial court has a “duty to take a ‘close look’ at whether common questions predominate over individual ones.” Id. (citation omitted).

Applying these principles, the Court held that the lower courts erred in rejecting Comcast’s arguments against the plaintiffs’ damages model just because they overlapped with the merits of the underlying antitrust claims. Id. at 6-7. As such, the Supreme Court determined that that the class of Comcast subscribers was “improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3)” and reversed the intermediate appellate court’s ruling. Id.

Damages Must Be Capable of Classwide Determination in Rule 23(b)(3) Class Actions

In reversing the lower courts’ rulings in the Comcast case, the Supreme Court also confirmed that damages must be “capable of measurement on a classwide basis.” Comcast, slip op. at 7. According to the Court, the damages model put forth by the plaintiffs, which “assumed the validity of all four theories of antitrust impact initially advanced by plaintiffs,” id. at 9, fell well short of this standard because it “failed to measure damages resulting from the particular antitrust injury on which [the defendants’] liability [was] premised.” Id. at 8. The district court only accepted one of the four theories of antitrust impact (the reduced overbuilder competition) and, thus, any damages awarded to the class had to be attributed to that theory alone. Because the proffered damages model was not so limited, the Supreme Court concluded that “[q]uestions of individual damage calculations [would] inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class,” defeating predominance and rendering classwide treatment improper. Id. at 7, 8.

Today’s Supreme Court decision is welcome news for defendants given the recent weakening of class action standards by some federal courts. By clarifying that a trial court must apply a “rigorous analysis” to each of the Rule 23 prerequisites, including predominance — even where such analysis entails an overlap with the merits underlying the plaintiff’s claims — the Court has indicated that lax class certification standards have no place in federal class action practice. In addition, those lower courts that have resisted the Supreme Court’s recent class certification decisions may be more inclined to deny class certification in cases involving individualized damages determinations.

Focus will now turn to Whirlpool v. Glazer, Supreme Court case number 12-322, in which the defendants have asked the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that affirmed certification of a class of washing machine owners alleging a defect that affected only a small minority of the class members’ machines.  The Supreme Court held the petition in abeyance pending resolution of Comcast, and it recently recirculated the petition for consideration at the Supreme Court’s next conference, on March 29.  The Court could decide to grant the petition for plenary review; it could also grant the petition and summarily remand the case for further consideration in light of Comcast; or it could deny the petition outright.  A decision on the petition could be announced as early as April 1.

Download PDF

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contact
more
less

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.