Sponsors (3)
The bill makes it easier to pursue and obtain remedies in antitrust cases—strengthening enforcement and potential consumer protection—but increases litigation risk, costs, and unpredictability for businesses.
State attorneys general, DOJ, the FTC, and private plaintiffs will more often be able to defeat early dismissal and get antitrust claims to juries, increasing the likelihood of enforcement against collusion and anticompetitive conduct.
Lowering the pleading/summary-judgment burden means plaintiffs can survive initial gatekeeping more easily, improving access to court for antitrust claimants (e.g., state AGs and harmed businesses) who otherwise might be shut out early.
The bill preserves existing antitrust remedies, keeping monetary relief and injunctive remedies available to consumers and businesses harmed by unlawful competition.
Easier survival of antitrust suits will increase litigation risk and legal costs for businesses (including small firms and financial institutions) and could raise costs for consumers or taxpayers if litigation diverts resources or increases prices.
Shifting more fact-finding to juries by limiting court gatekeeping may produce less predictable outcomes in antitrust cases, increasing legal uncertainty for companies and potentially uneven results for consumers.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Lowers civil antitrust pleading and summary-judgment standards so claims can proceed based on parallel conduct plus two or more plus factors or sufficient evidence for a jury to infer conspiracy.
Official title: 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.
Introduced April 30, 2026 by Mary Gay Scanlon · Last progress April 30, 2026
The bill changes federal antitrust pleading and summary-judgment standards so plaintiffs can survive early dismissal and summary-judgment motions by alleging parallel conduct plus at least two specified “plus factors,” or by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence that allows a reasonable factfinder to infer a conspiracy. It clarifies covered statutes (Sherman Act, Clayton Act, FTC Act), defines key terms, and states the Act does not narrow existing antitrust remedies. The change lowers the evidentiary barriers for the United States, state attorneys general, the FTC, and private plaintiffs to pursue civil antitrust claims while preserving available remedies if liability is proven at trial.