Can a court of appeals' review of summary judgment in an antitrust conspiracy case be deemed proper if it fails to apply the appropriate legal standards?

Twenty-one Japanese corporations or Japanese-controlled American corporations that manufacture and sell consumer electronic products, primarily television sets, were accused by two American television manufacturers, Zenith Radio Corporation and National Union Electric Corporation. The American companies alleged that over a 20-year period, the Japanese firms had engaged in an illegal conspiracy to drive American companies out of the U.S. consumer electronics market. The alleged scheme involved fixing artificially high prices for television sets sold in Japan while simultaneously maintaining low prices for sets exported to and sold in the United States. The American companies claimed this conduct violated multiple U.S. antitrust laws, including Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act, and Section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act.

Respondents filed an action in Federal District Court in 1974. After an extended period of discovery spanning several years, petitioners moved for summary judgment on all claims. The District Court instructed both parties to submit statements listing all documentary evidence they would present at trial. Upon review, the District Court deemed the majority of respondents' evidence inadmissible and granted summary judgment in favor of petitioners. Respondents appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling, finding that both direct and circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy existed. Following this reversal, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for further review.

(Powell, J.)

No. A court of appeals' review of summary judgment in an antitrust conspiracy case is improper if it fails to apply the appropriate legal standards. The standard for evaluating summary judgment in antitrust conspiracy cases requires evidence that tends to exclude the possibility of independent action by the defendants. This standard is particularly crucial when dealing with allegations of economically implausible conspiracies, such as predatory pricing schemes involving multiple firms over extended periods. The plausibility of the alleged conspiracy must be assessed in light of economic realities and rational business motivations. Predatory pricing conspiracies are inherently unlikely to succeed and rarely attempted, especially when involving multiple participants over many years. The absence of a rational motive for defendants to engage in such a conspiracy significantly undermines its plausibility. When reviewing summary judgment in these cases, courts must consider whether the evidence presented creates a genuine issue for trial, taking into account the economic implausibility of the alleged scheme and the lack of evidence demonstrating its success over time. Failure to apply these standards in evaluating summary judgment decisions undermines the effectiveness of antitrust law enforcement and may lead to protracted litigation of meritless claims. The proper application of these standards ensures that only cases with sufficient evidence of concerted action proceed to trial, maintaining the balance between deterring anticompetitive behavior and preventing unwarranted interference with legitimate business practices.

Dissent (White, J.) The Court of Appeals correctly found genuine issues of material fact in this case. The majority's opinion improperly invades the factfinder's province by making assumptions about the case. This approach undermines the role of juries in antitrust cases and sets a dangerous precedent for future litigation. The evidence presented was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact, and summary judgment should not have been granted. The majority's emphasis on plausible motives overlooks the possibility of irrational or complex business decisions that may not be immediately apparent.