The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Third Circuit) recently held that evidence of parallel price increases and other circumstantial evidence was insufficient to show a price-fixing conspiracy, but rather indicated legal “conscious parallelism” by competitors. In Valspar Corp. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 16-1345, the court ruled that evidence of parallel price increases in oligopolistic markets is insufficient on its own to establish a price-fixing conspiracy.
Key takeaways from the case:
- Price-fixing plaintiffs relying on circumstantial evidence in oligopolistic markets face a high standard in the Third Circuit.
- Antitrust price-fixing cases are highly fact-dependent, and civil plaintiffs may still bring cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, including private correspondence and public announcements.
- The success of ambiguous evidence in a price-fixing case involving an oligopolistic market may depend upon where the case is located. In a related case in another circuit on the same set of facts the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Sidley Austin LLP provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.
Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, 212.839.5300; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, 312.853.7000; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202.736.8000.