Supreme Court Raises the Bar to Class Certification

by McCarter & English, LLP

The United States Supreme Court has continued to raise the bar on class certification by requiring that plaintiffs be able to prove damages on a class-wide basis. In Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, a putative class alleged that Comcast monopolized the Philadelphia cable market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The plaintiffs asserted four antitrust theories of liability against Comcast, but the District Court certified the class action as to only one of the theories. But the plaintiffs' damages model was based on all four, so Comcast appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs couldn't prove damages. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that since three out of four theories of liability upon which the damages calculation was based didn't survive, damages could not be calculated across the entire class and the class could therefore not be certified.

The effect

This decision creates a new weapon for defendants to collaterally attack class certification. The Court's new standard for evaluating class certification appears to require plaintiffs to plead their damages claims such that they are able to establish the damages on a class-wide basis.  The decision invites the argument by defendants that, "[q]uestions of individual damage calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class."  Comcast also appears to require plaintiffs to plead a damages theory that is consistent with their liability theory, particularly with respect to the alleged anti-competitive effects of the violation.

The case

Comcast cable television subscribers in the Philadelphia area sued Comcast, alleging that the company violated federal antitrust laws by engaging in "clustering" - a strategy of concentrating operations within a particular region.  The plaintiffs asserted four theories of liability, but the District Court certified the class as to only one of them - that Comcast acquired a significant share of the Philadelphia area, which deterred competitors, "overbuilders," from entering the greater Philadelphia cable market, thereby resulting in less competition and supra-competitive prices.

The District Court found that the class could prove class-wide damages, as required by Rule 23, despite the plaintiffs' reliance on an expert damages model based on the collective impact of all four of their liability theories, including the three theories that the court rejected.  Comcast appealed, arguing that plaintiffs failed to establish that damages could be measured on a class-wide basis.  The Third Circuit affirmed the trial court, refusing to consider Comcast's argument that the plaintiffs' damages model failed to attribute damages to overbuilder deterrence because doing so would require reaching the merits of the plaintiffs' claims at the class certification stage.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the plaintiffs' class was improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3).  Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, found that the Third Circuit ignored key precedents when it "refus[ed] to entertain arguments against [the plaintiffs'] damages model that bore on the propriety of class certification simply because they would also be pertinent to the merits determination".  The majority  "emphasized" that under Wal-Mart v. Dukes (another Supreme Court case decided in 2011), courts must "probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question," not only to determine whether the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied, but also to determine whether Rule 23(b)(3)'s "predominance" requirements have been met. "That is so because the 'class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action.'"  The majority found that the first step in determining damages requires "translation of the legal theory of the harmful event into an analysis of the economic impact of that event." The plaintiffs' damages model failed to isolate  supra-competitive prices caused by the alleged deterrence to overbuilding, their only remaining antitrust theory of liability.  Therefore, the Court concluded, damages were not measurable across the entire class, rendering the plaintiffs unable to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirements.

The dissent focused on the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, saying the Supreme Court never should have taken the case because Comcast didn't object to the expert's testimony at the District Court level. The dissent also noted that it was universally accepted that "individual damage calculations do not preclude class certification," opining that the Court's ruling was "good for this day and case only."

The Comcast ruling heightens the requirements for plaintiffs seeking class certification and will have significant implications for antitrust class actions in particular, and for class actions in general. 

The foregoing article was prepared by Richard Hernandez. If you would like more information or to discuss the impact of Comcast, contact Richard or another member of McCarter's Franchise/Antitrust and Trade Regulation group; the members' contact information appears below.

Disclaimer by McCarter & English, LLP: This publication is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal advice as to any particular matter. No reader should act on the basis of this publication without seeking appropriate professional advice as to the particular facts and applicable law involved.

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.

© McCarter & English, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McCarter & English, LLP

McCarter & English, 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.