U.S. Supreme Court Throws Into Question Proof Of Damages Requirements For Class Certification

by Perkins Coie

On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. ___, No. 11-864, 2013 WL 1222646 (Mar. 27, 2013).  In a 5-4 decision, the Court reemphasized its recent precedent in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), holding that in determining whether to certify a class, lower courts may not refuse to entertain arguments against plaintiffs’ evidence of damages bearing on the propriety of class certification “simply because those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits determination.”  Perkins Coie had submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Intel Corporation in support of this outcome. 

The opinion also throws into question, and leaves unresolved, the apparent conflict with long-standing precedent that “a class may obtain certification under Rule 23(b)(3) when liability questions common to the class predominate over damages questions unique to class members.”  Comcast, 2013 WL 1222646, at *9 (Ginsburg & Breyer, JJ., dissenting).  The decision thus potentially raises the bar for class-action plaintiffs to prove that damages are susceptible to proof on a classwide basis.

Background and Procedural History

In 2007, plaintiff subscribers to Comcast’s cable television services filed a class-action antitrust suit against Comcast and related entities alleging unlawful swap agreements in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as monopolization or attempted monopolization in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. The action was based on Comcast’s alleged practice of “clustering”—concentrating operations within a particular region by acquiring competitor cable providers and swapping its own systems outside the region for the competitors’ systems within the region.

Plaintiffs offered four distinct theories of antitrust impact in moving for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and the district court accepted only one.  To demonstrate damages, plaintiffs relied on a single expert who designed a regression model comparing actual cable prices with hypothetical prices that would have been available but for Comcast’s clustering practices.  The expert acknowledged, however, that his model did not isolate the damages based on the one accepted theory of impact from the three other rejected theories.

Nevertheless, the district court certified the class, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, refusing to consider the argument that plaintiffs had failed to show that damages were measurable on a classwide basis.  As the Third Circuit stated, to consider the argument would constitute “an attack[] on the merits of the methodology,” which “ha[ve] no place in the class certification inquiry.”  The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Siding with Comcast, the Court reaffirmed its recent decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, in instructing that it “may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question, and that certification is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.’”  Such an inquiry frequently “overlap[s] with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.”  The Court pointed out that the same principles apply, perhaps more rigorously, to the predominance requirements of Rules 23(a).  The following are key points from the decision:

  • The Court held that “[b]y refusing to entertain arguments against respondents’ damages model that bore on the propriety of class certification, simply because those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits determination, the Court of Appeals ran afoul of our precedents requiring precisely that inquiry.”
  • The Court found that certification should not have been granted.  Based on the damages expert, plaintiffs could not show that questions common to the class would predominate over individual damages calculations.
  • The Court found the expert’s model lacking because it failed to distinguish the accepted theory of antitrust impact from the three other theories.  “[A] model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in this class action must measure only those damages attributable to that theory.  If the model does not even attempt to do that, it cannot possibly establish that damages are susceptible of measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).”  Indeed, “[p]rices whose level above what an expert deems ‘competitive’ ha[ve] been caused by factors unrelated to an accepted theory of antitrust harm are not ‘anticompetitive’ in any sense relevant here.”
  • The Court of Appeals erred insofar as it found “it unnecessary to decide ‘whether the methodology [was] a just and reasonable inference or speculative.’  Under that logic, at the class-certification stage any method of measurement is acceptable so long as it can be applied classwide, no matter how arbitrary the measurements may be. Such a proposition would reduce Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement to a nullity.”


Justices Ginsburg and Breyer jointly wrote a dissenting opinion, an unusual procedure, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan signed on.  The dissent argued that certiorari had been improvidently granted based on the Court’s “misguided reformulation” of the question presented and that the majority opinion was “unwise[ly] and unfair[ly]” far reaching.  The dissenting justices warned that the case should not be read to break new ground on class certification standards, and “[i]n particular, . . . should not be read to require, as a prerequisite to certification, that damages attributable to a classwide injury be measurable ‘on a classwide basis.’” 

The minority emphasized that the predominance requirement of Rule 23 “test[s] whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation” and does not “demand[] commonality as to all questions.”  Indeed, “the predominance standard is generally satisfied even if damages are not provable in the aggregate.”  “In the mine run of cases, it remains the ‘black letter rule’ that a class may obtain certification under Rule 23(b)(3) when liability questions common to the class predominate over damages questions unique to class members.”

Written by:

Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie 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 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.