In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, 959 F. Supp. 2d 799

Five large TiO2 producers (Millennium, Kronos, DuPont, Huntsman, Tronox) allegedly conspired to fix prices; class includes small U.S. TiO2 purchasers; case centers on 2002 TDMA-Global Statistics Program expansion and related data sharing; substantial Concordant price increases occurred post-2002; plaintiffs rely on circumstantial evidence (communications, data sharing, industry meetings) to prove conspiracy; court denied summary judgment for Kronos and Millennium as to remaining defendants; standard of review emphasizes Matsushita and need for plus factors; TDMA data controls and interfirm coordination are key elements; trial will resolve whether parallel conduct plus non-economic evidence proves an agreement

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs can prove a conspiracy via circumstantial evidence.	Plaintiffs show parallel price increases and data sharing.	Conscious parallelism without an explicit agreement is insufficient.	No; a jury could infer conspiracy from totality of evidence
Whether there are proper plus factors indicating agreement beyond parallelism.	Plus factors (motive, self-interest, traditional conspiracy) exist.	Evidence could be explained by competitive interdependence in oligopoly.	Yes; plus factors present support a plausible conspiracy
Whether non-economic evidence and communications constitute traditional conspiracy proof.	Statements and exchanges among competitors and with Fisher show common action.	Mere opportunities to conspire are insufficient without explicit agreements.	Yes; non-economic evidence supports traditional conspiracy inference
Whether the statute of limitations bars damages claims beginning 2003.	Fraudulent concealment tolled the period; concealment evident in secret data programs.	Concealment not shown; earlier public announcements gave inquiry notice.	Fraudulent concealment found; tolling survives summary judgment as to damages

Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1984) (evidence must tend to exclude independent action to prove conspiracy)
Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (limits permissible inferences from ambiguous evidence; need to prove plausible conspiracy)
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. United States, 310 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1940) (foundational framework for price-fixing liability)
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 385 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2004) (plus factors; oligopoly; evidence of conspiracy beyond parallelism)
High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002) (plus factors; evidence of collusion in oligopolies)
Publ’n Paper Antitrust Litig., 690 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2012) (ambiguous evidence; totality-of-evidence approach; denies summary judgment)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technologies Servs., 504 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1992) (economic sense of plaintiffs’ claims does not require special burden at summary judgment)
In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002) (context for evaluating conspiracy in oligopolies)