From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
United States Supreme Court
133 S.Ct. 1426, 569 U.S. 27 (2013)
Caroline Behrend and 2 million others who were similarly situated (plaintiffs) filed a class-action suit in federal district court against cable-television provider Comcast Corporation (Comcast) and its subsidiaries (defendants), seeking damages for violations of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs claimed that Comcast had attempted to monopolize the cable market in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, through a series of swap transactions with cable providers in other markets that resulted in the elimination of competition and increased prices. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(b)(3) and proposed four different theories of antitrust impact. An expert for the plaintiffs, Dr. James McClave, compared actual cable prices in the Philadelphia market with hypothetical prices that would have prevailed but for Comcast’s conduct, and fashioned damages of over $875 million for the class. In granting the motion for class certification, the district court accepted only one of the plaintiffs’ theories, namely that Comcast’s conduct reduced the level of competition from companies that built competing cable networks in areas where an existing cable company operated. This was known as the overbuilder theory. Although the damages model did not indicate specifically how the overbuilder theory affected the price of cable-television services in the area, the district court concluded that damages from decreased competition could be calculated on a classwide basis. The defendants appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Dr. McClave was not required to correlate damages to likely antitrust impact based on Comcast’s conduct at the class-certification stage, because this would involve an analysis of the merits of the case. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J. and Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.