Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
133 S. Ct. 1426
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Comcast clustered its cable operations in the Philadelphia DMA from 1998 to 2007 by swapping systems with others outside the region.
- The Philadelphia DMA includes parts of PA, DE, and NJ and expanded Comcast's market share in the cluster over time.
- Named plaintiffs, Comcast subscribers, sued alleging violations of Sherman Act §§1 and 2 and sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
- District Court required plaintiffs to prove common antitrust impact and classwide damages measurement, accepting only the overbuilder-deterence theory for classwide damages.
- The District Court certified the class based on a damages model (McClave) that compared actual prices to a hypothetical 'but-for' price, asserting classwide measurability.
- The Third Circuit affirmed certification, declining to require damages methodology to isolate the overbuilder theory and rejecting merits-based objections at the certification stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) without resolving whether damages can be measured classwide. | Behrend argues model shows classwide damages from all theories. | Comcast contends damages could be measured classwide despite multiple theories. | No; damages must be measured for the specific classwide theory recognized. |
| Whether the damages model tied to the only certified theory (overbuilder deterrence) can establish predominance. | Plaintiffs claim model supports classwide damages for overbuilder theory. | Model cannot isolate damages from overbuilder deterrence. | Model fails to measure damages attributable to the certified theory. |
| Whether the district court complied with rigorous analysis required for Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) certification. | Certification is proper if damages are classwide measurable. | Requires demonstration of common damages theory tied to liability. | Certification improper; damages not shown to be classwide for the certified theory. |
| Whether a court may certify a class when damages calculations depend on multiple theories of antitrust impact. | All damages can be calculated by a single model. | Damage measurement would conflate multiple theories not all amenable to classwide proof. | Cannot certify when model cannot isolate damages from the sole theory admitted for classwide proof. |
| Whether appellate courts may consider merits-like questions at certification when such questions are enmeshed with classwide damages. | Merits questions can inform certification determinations. | Merits considerations should not override certification standards. | Certification reversed; merits-related considerations improperly resolved at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (S. Ct. 2011) (rigorous analysis; predominance requires more than commonality)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (predominance; class action safeguards for Rule 23(b)(3))
- Falcon, General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (overlaps between merits and certification; need for rigorous analysis)
- Image Technical Services v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997) (damages methodology must be consistent with liability theory for classwide proof)
- In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) (antitrust damages; class certification considerations in multi-theory contexts)