Competitive Prices Act.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to make it easier for plaintiffs, including the government and private parties, to bring and sustain antitrust lawsuits alleging price fixing or other collusive behavior based on circumstantial evidence.
What it actually does
This bill, the 'Competitive Prices Act,' clarifies and lowers the evidentiary standards for plaintiffs alleging antitrust violations under the Sherman Act, particularly concerning claims of consciously parallel pricing coordination. It specifies that plaintiffs can plausibly state a claim by alleging parallel conduct and two or more 'plus factors' at the pleading stage, and similarly lowers the bar for surviving summary judgment by removing the requirement to exclude the possibility of independent action.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current legal standards, established by Supreme Court decisions like *Twombly* and *Iqbal*, have made it excessively difficult for plaintiffs to challenge anticompetitive parallel conduct, effectively shielding powerful corporations from accountability. They contend that this bill restores a more balanced approach, allowing legitimate antitrust claims to proceed to discovery and trial, thereby promoting competition and protecting consumers from coordinated price manipulation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill risks encouraging frivolous lawsuits and increasing litigation costs for businesses, potentially chilling legitimate competitive behavior. They may contend that the existing standards are necessary to prevent baseless claims from proceeding, which could force companies to settle even weak cases due to the high cost of discovery and trial, ultimately harming innovation and economic efficiency.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward for those familiar with legal terminology, making it accessible for a quick review.
Section 2(a)
Definitions of Antitrust Terms
This section defines key terms used in the bill. It clarifies what 'antitrust laws' refer to, broadly defines 'parallel conduct' as similar actions by two or more persons affecting competition (not necessarily uniform), and provides a non-exhaustive list of 'plus factors' which are additional allegations that can support an inference of conspiracy, such as a motive to coordinate, actions against self-interest, or opportunities to conspire.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clear definitions, especially of 'plus factors,' provide necessary guidance to courts and litigants, ensuring a consistent application of antitrust law and making it easier to identify and prosecute anticompetitive behavior.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the broad definition of 'parallel conduct' and the extensive list of 'plus factors' could lead to an overreach in antitrust enforcement, potentially penalizing legitimate, independent business decisions that happen to align with competitors.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between providing clear guidance for antitrust enforcement and ensuring that legitimate competitive actions are not mistakenly targeted as collusive.
Section 2(b)
Standards for Pleading and Proving Antitrust Violations
This section sets new standards for how antitrust claims are handled in court. At the initial 'pleading stage' (when a complaint is filed), a plaintiff only needs to allege parallel conduct and two or more 'plus factors' to proceed, without needing to prove direct evidence of a conspiracy or rule out independent action. Similarly, at the 'summary judgment stage' (before trial), a plaintiff only needs to show enough evidence for a jury to *potentially* find a conspiracy, again without needing to exclude the possibility of independent action or demonstrate that their evidence is stronger than the defendant's.
Section 2(c)
Rule of Construction Regarding Remedies
This short provision clarifies that nothing in the Act should be interpreted to limit or reduce the existing remedies available under current antitrust laws. This means that while the bill changes how antitrust violations are pleaded and proven, it does not alter the types of penalties or relief (like damages or injunctions) that can be sought.