[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8633 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 8633
To specify the standards governing claims of consciously parallel
pricing coordination in civil actions under the Sherman Act, and to
clarify the meaning of contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy under the Sherman Act.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 30, 2026
Ms. Scanlon (for herself and Mr. Nadler) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To specify the standards governing claims of consciously parallel
pricing coordination in civil actions under the Sherman Act, and to
clarify the meaning of contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy under the Sherman Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Competitive Prices Act.''
SEC. 2. PLEADING AN ANTITRUST VIOLATION THROUGH PARALLEL CONDUCT AND
PLUS FACTORS.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) The term ``antitrust laws'' means the Sherman Act (15
U.S.C. 1, et seq.), the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12, et seq.),
and the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41, et seq.).
(2) The term ``parallel conduct'' means two or more persons
acting similarly to raise, lower, maintain, stabilize, or
manipulate price, output, capacity, supply, or other terms of
competition for reasonably interchangeable commodities or
services. Parallel conduct need not be uniform and can be
varied in timing, method, and amount.
(3) The term ``person'' has the meaning given the term in
subsection (a) of the 1st section of the Clayton Act (5 U.S.C.
12(a)).
(4) The term ``plus factors'' means allegations other than
parallel conduct supporting the inference of a conspiracy,
including--
(A) a motive to coordinate efforts to raise, lower,
maintain, stabilize, or manipulate price, output,
capacity, supply, or other terms of competition for the
purchase or sale of reasonably interchangeable
commodities or services;
(B) actions that would be contrary to a person's
unilateral economic self-interest absent a conspiracy;
(C) departure from prior pricing methodology and
practices;
(D) exchanges of competitively sensitive
information;
(E) price or output levels unexplained by cost,
supply, or demand;
(F) an opportunity to conspire at industry events,
conferences, trade association activities, or through
any other meetings or venues;
(G) past collusive practices;
(H) an invitation to participate in a common
scheme, including by public signaling of pricing,
output, capacity, supply, or other competitive
strategies, or offering of a method to engage in
parallel conduct; and
(I) market conditions conducive to coordination,
including high market concentration, high barriers to
entry, high exit barriers, inelastic demand, or
fungible products.
(5) The terms ``State attorney general'' and ``State'' have
the meaning given in section 4G of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
15g).
(b) Standards of Pleading and Proof.--In a civil action, including
an action brought by the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, a
State attorney general, or any person seeking damages or injunctive
relief for violations of the antitrust laws--
(1) when opposing any motion to dismiss a complaint, motion
for judgment on the pleadings, or any other motion challenging
the sufficiency of the allegations, a claimant--
(A) plausibly states a claim by alleging parallel
conduct and the presence of two or more plus factors;
(B) need not allege direct evidence of a
conspiracy;
(C) need not allege facts tending to exclude the
possibility of independent action; and
(D) need not allege a theory that is more plausible
than one offered by defendants, as the court at the
pleading stage must only consider whether the
allegations are plausible, not whether an alternative
explanation is equally or more plausible; and
(2) when opposing any motion for summary judgment, motion
for directed verdict, motion for judgment as a matter of law,
or any other motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
and permitting a ruling as matter of law, a claimant--
(A) demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact
by offering evidence, which may be direct evidence,
circumstantial evidence, or some combination of the
two, that is sufficient to allow a trier of fact to
find that the defending party engaged in an unlawful
conspiracy;
(B) need not offer evidence tending to exclude the
possibility that the defending party acted
independently; and
(C) need not demonstrate that the weight of the
evidence favors the claimant, as all evidence must be
construed in the light most favorable to the party
opposing summary judgment and the weighing of the
evidence is an issue for the finder of fact.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to abridge or narrow the remedies available under the antitrust laws.
<all>