Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
569 U.S. ____ (2013) (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a class action to be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the plaintiffs' damages model must be consistent with their theory of liability. The model must be capable of measuring only those damages attributable to the specific theory of antitrust impact that is proceeding on a class-wide basis.
Facts:
- From 1998 to 2007, Comcast Corporation engaged in a strategy of "clustering" its cable television operations in the Philadelphia region.
- This strategy involved acquiring competitor cable providers and swapping systems with competitors to concentrate its operations within the region.
- As a result of these transactions, Comcast's share of cable subscribers in the Philadelphia region increased from approximately 23.9 percent to 69.5 percent.
- A group of Comcast subscribers, led by Caroline Behrend, alleged that this clustering strategy was anticompetitive and caused them to pay artificially high prices for cable services.
- The subscribers initially proposed four theories for how Comcast's actions harmed them: withholding sports programming, deterring competing "overbuilders," reducing benchmark price competition, and increasing bargaining power over content providers.
Procedural Posture:
- Caroline Behrend and other subscribers sued Comcast Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for alleged antitrust violations.
- The plaintiffs moved to certify a class of over two million subscribers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
- The District Court granted the motion but limited the plaintiffs' case to a single theory of antitrust impact: that Comcast's conduct deterred market entry by potential 'overbuilders.'
- Comcast, the petitioner, appealed the class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's certification order, holding that attacks on the damages methodology were improper at the certification stage.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Comcast's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permit class certification when the plaintiffs' proposed class-wide damages model fails to isolate damages attributable to the sole theory of liability remaining in the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in a class action must measure only those damages attributable to the plaintiff's theory of liability. For a court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), it must conduct a 'rigorous analysis,' which may overlap with the merits of the case, to determine if common questions of law or fact predominate over individual ones. Here, the plaintiffs' damages model calculated damages based on all four of their proposed theories of antitrust harm. However, the District Court found that only one of those theories—the deterrence of 'overbuilders'—was capable of class-wide proof. Because the damages model did not isolate the damages resulting from just the overbuilder theory, it could not establish that damages were susceptible of measurement on a class-wide basis. Therefore, questions of individual damage calculations would overwhelm questions common to the class, defeating the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer
Yes. The Court's decision breaks from the established principle that the need for individual damages calculations does not typically defeat class certification when questions of liability are common to the class. The District Court's factual finding that the damages model was viable even after limiting the liability theory was not an abuse of discretion and should not have been overturned. Furthermore, the Court decided the case on a question different from the one it granted certiorari to review, which was procedurally unfair to the respondents. The majority's holding misapplies antitrust law and creates an unnecessary and heightened barrier to class certification, particularly in complex antitrust cases where a defendant's conduct causes a single, indivisible injury like supracompetitive prices.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), particularly in antitrust cases. It established that a plaintiff's methodology for proving damages is not a question to be left for the merits phase but is an essential part of the 'rigorous analysis' required at the certification stage. By insisting that the damages model align precisely with the certified theory of liability, the Court made it more difficult and costly for plaintiffs to certify a class, as they must now develop complex, theory-specific economic models upfront. The ruling has been influential in subsequent class action litigation, frequently cited by defendants to challenge the predominance requirement by scrutinizing the plaintiffs' proposed damages model.
Unlock the full brief for Comcast Corp. v. Behrend