Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162

Anderson News, L.L.C. (wholesaler) and its assignee sued a group of major magazine publishers and distributors for a supposed industry-wide antitrust conspiracy to drive Anderson out of business in the single-copy magazine market.
Anderson alleged that publishers and national distributors coordinated to withhold or terminate shipments to Anderson following Anderson’s announcement of a $.07-per-copy surcharge.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as facially implausible under Twombly and Iqbal, and denied leave to amend.
The court found no plausible context suggesting a prior agreement and emphasized Anderson’s unilateral surcharge as the trigger for market-wide retaliation.
Anderson appealed, arguing the proposed amended complaint (PAC) raised plausible facts showing a conspiracy and that the court should have permitted amendment and further proceedings.
On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the PAC plausibly alleged a § 1 conspiracy and that dismissal prior to discovery was in error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plausibility of antitrust conspiracy claim under Twombly/Iqbal	Anderson’s PAC alleged specific meetings, communications, and coordinated actions.	Defendants contended the allegations were conclusory and insufficient to show agreement.	PAC plausibly stated a § 1 claim; district court erred in denying amendment.
Whether amendments to the complaint should have been allowed	PAC added detailed facts showing coordination and intent.	Amendment would be futile and duplicative of conclusory assertions.	Leave to amend should have been granted; PAC was not legally futile.
Collateral estoppel effect of Delaware order against AMI	Delaware order showed AMI continued shipments, implying non-participation.	Delaware order was not a final dispositive judgment; thus estoppel may not apply.	Collateral estoppel should not bar the Sherman Act claim against AMI.
Role of Hudson in the alleged conspiracy	Hudson, a wholesaler, could have conspired with publishers to eliminate Anderson.	Hudson’s role as a wholesaler did not plausibly fit conspiracy liability.	Hudson could be involved in a conspiracy; dismissal based solely on horizontal parallels was improper.
Remedy for state-law claims alongside Sherman Act claim	If antitrust claim survives, state-law claims should remain viable.	If antitrust claim is doomed, state-law claims should follow.	Remand for consideration of both Sherman Act and state-law claims appropriate.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard; parallel conduct needs context suggesting agreement)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; factual content to show plausible claim)
Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1985) (per se rejection of certain group boycotts; concerted refusals to deal)
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1959) (group boycotts as a category of restraints forbidden by the Sherman Act)
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1984) (concerted action required; independent action not prohibited; plausibility at pleading stage)
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1984) (distinction between concerted and independent action; single entity law)
American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (U.S. 2010) (corporate entities under Sherman Act; control and coordination issues)
Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (context-specific pleading in antitrust conspiracy cases)