At summary judgment, a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility of independent action. Conduct making no economic sense absent conspiracy supports the inference.
The standard reflects concern about chilling competition.
Alternative Names:
Matsushita|Antitrust Summary Judgment Standard
Why it Matters?
The tends-to-exclude requirement is more demanding than ordinary summary judgment standards, reflecting the concern that mistaken antitrust liability chills the competitive conduct the laws protect, which gives defendants a meaningful advantage on circumstantial conspiracy claims. Establishing a plausible independent business rationale for the challenged conduct shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to exclude it.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Why is the standard more demanding?
What shifts the burden back?
