Class Certification Derailed: D.C. Circuit Applies Supreme Court’s Comcast Decision

by Dechert LLP

Key Points:

  • Defendants in antitrust cases may be able to defeat class certification by demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ damages model yields false positives – i.e., that the model calculates injury where none could exist.
  • Courts must consider each of defendants’ arguments in opposition to class certification or risk reversal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently vacated the certification of a direct purchaser class in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation.1 This decision represents the first significant federal appeals court application of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend2 to overturn class certification.

In Rail Freight, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ damages model yielded false positives – i.e., that it found injury where none could exist – but the district court’s class certification opinion ignored this issue. The D.C. Circuit found this to be reversible error and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to reconsider certification in light of Comcast. In doing so, the D.C. Circuit indicated that if the plaintiffs’ damages model in fact yielded false positives, then the model could not reliably measure impact from the alleged conspiracy, and certification would be inappropriate. The court stated in no uncertain terms:

If accurate, this critique would shred the plaintiffs’ case for certification. Common questions of fact cannot predominate where there exists no reliable means of proving classwide injury in fact. When a case turns on individualized proof of injury, separate trials are in order.3

In the wake of Rail Freight, defendants opposing class certification should try to develop evidence showing that the plaintiffs’ damages model yields false positives – i.e., that the model finds injury where none could exist, and therefore must be measuring something other than impact caused by the alleged antitrust violation. While such efforts have long been common, in the past courts often gave them short shrift. Rail Freight sends a strong message that these types of arguments must be carefully considered and that proof of false positives will defeat class certification.


The plaintiffs in Rail Freight were shipping companies which claimed to have been injured by an alleged conspiracy among four rail freight carriers to impose anticompetitive fuel surcharges that bore no connection to their actual fuel costs. Following discovery, the district court certified a class consisting of persons and entities that “purchased rate-unregulated rail freight transportation services directly from one or more of the Defendants, as to which Defendants assessed a stand-alone rail freight fuel surcharge applied as a percentage of the base rate for the freight transport.”4

The second half of this definition was important because some shippers had so-called legacy contracts, entered into before the alleged conspiracy began.5 These legacy contracts used different formulas for determining whether and when a fuel surcharge would be imposed. Any shipper that paid a surcharge pursuant to a legacy contract could not have been injured by reason of the alleged conspiracy, because the contractual surcharge formula was adopted at a time when the conspiracy did not yet exist.

The district court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), finding that the prerequisites to certification – numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy – were met; that common questions of law or fact predominated over any individual questions; and that a class action was superior to other available methods of adjudicating the controversy.6 The predominance finding was based on two regression models developed by the plaintiffs’ expert. One model, called “the common factor model,” attempted to isolate the common determinants of prices shippers paid to the defendants. The other was a “damages model” intended to quantify, in percentage terms, the overcharge due to conspiratorial conduct at various points in time. The two models were designed to operate in conjunction “to set forth a persuasive inference of causation: certain common factors predominate in the determination of freight rates; controlling for those common factors, analysis of defendants’ transaction data reveals that there was a structural break in the relationship between freight rates and fuel prices around 2003.”7

Interlocutory Appeal to the D.C. Circuit

Although the defendants mounted a “medley of attacks” on the class certification decision, the D.C. Circuit focused mainly on one: defendants’ assertion that, when applied to shippers with legacy contracts, the plaintiffs’ model calculated damages, even though such shippers could not have been injured by the alleged conspiracy.8 If true, the court reasoned, certification could not stand, because there would be “no reliable means of proving classwide injury in fact.”9

The defendants had raised this argument below but the D.C. Circuit could not tell from the district court’s opinion whether it had been considered. For this reason, and because the district court lacked the guidance of the Comcast decision at the time of its certification decision, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case for a fresh consideration of these issues.10

Implications of the Decision
  • Defendants in antitrust cases may be able to defeat class certification by demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ damages model yields false positives – i.e., that the model calculates injury where none could exist.

Rail Freight illustrates the increased difficulty antitrust plaintiffs face in obtaining class certification after Comcast. Courts will no longer blindly accept the representation of plaintiffs’ experts that their models show class-wide impact caused by the alleged antitrust violation. Now courts must scrutinize those models to satisfy themselves that the models actually do what they are alleged to do. Defendants can defeat certification by showing a disconnect between plaintiffs’ liability and damages theories, as in Comcast, or the existence of false positives, as in Rail Freight. Courts will conduct a rigorous analysis to ensure the plaintiffs’ models support an inference of causation and injury to all members of the class.

  • Courts must consider each of defendants’ arguments in opposition to class certification or risk reversal.

Rail Freight also offers a lesson for district courts. In certifying a class they must address each of the defendants’ arguments and explain why they do not present obstacles to certification. Courts that fail to do so risk reversal.

  • Rail Freight is the continuation of a trend that began before Comcast and will only intensify as courts continue to apply Comcast.

As noted by the Rail Freight court, the Supreme Court believed that the Comcast opinion was grounded in “an unremarkable premise.”11 Indeed, since the decision of the Third Circuit in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation,12 courts have increasingly required more from purported class plaintiffs to demonstrate classwide impact, particularly in antitrust cases. But, as noted by the Rail Freight court, many courts were still “far more accommodating to class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).”13 Comcast, however, clarified for these courts the proper standard to apply. While Rail Freight is the first circuit court to apply Comcast in this way, it is clear that there will be more decisions decided on similar grounds.

1. --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4038561 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2013).

2. 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).

3. 2013 WL 4038561, at *5.

4. 2013 WL 4038561, at *2 n.3.

5. See id. at 4.

6. See 287 F.R.D. 1, 12, 20, 43-71 (D.D.C. 2012).

7. Id. at 69.

8. 2013 WL 4038561, at *5.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. 133 S. Ct. at 1433.

12. 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008).

13. 2013 WL 4038561, at *8 (citing examples).

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.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP

Dechert 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.