Bill · H.R. 8633· House(119-HR-8633)
Competitive Prices Act.
- Introduced
- 4/30/2026
- Last activity
- 4/30/2026 — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Mary Gay Scanlon
- Cosponsors
- - 2 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Competitive Prices Act aims to specify standards for claims involving parallel pricing coordination in civil actions under the Sherman Act. It clarifies terms related to contracts, combinations, and conspiracies. The bill provides specific definitions for parallel conduct and "plus factors" that can support an inference of a conspiracy. It also establishes standards for pleading and proof in civil actions brought by various entities. These standards apply when opposing motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment.
Yes· 3 of 4
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?+6
The bill makes it easier for claimants to bring civil actions against companies for price manipulation and parallel pricing coordination.
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?+4
By easing the process to challenge price-fixing, the bill may help curb artificial price increases on essential goods and services.
Would middle-income households be better off under this?+4
The bill facilitates easier legal recourse against market collusion that could drive up costs for consumers.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Easier legal process for claimants: Under Section 2(b)(1), a claimant can plausibly state a claim by alleging parallel conduct and two or more "plus factors" without needing to allege direct evidence of a conspiracy. This could benefit people or entities seeking damages or injunctive relief.
-
Reduced burden of proof during early litigation stages: According to Section 2(b)(1)(C) and 2(b)(2)(B), claimants do not need to allege or offer evidence that excludes the possibility of independent action.
-
Favorable evidence standards: Section 2(b)(1)(D) states that at the pleading stage, a court only needs to consider if allegations are plausible rather than if they are more plausible than a defendant's explanation. Additionally, Section 2(b)(2)(C) notes that evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Expanded definitions of suspicious activity: Section 2(a)(4) provides a broad list of "plus factors" that can be used to infer a conspiracy, such as motive to coordinate, departure from prior pricing, or market conditions like high concentration and high barriers to entry.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Low Income Households+4Good For Middle Class Households+4Good For Union Workers+3
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+6
- 5/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/30/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Becca BalintDemocrat · Vermont
Jerrold NadlerDemocrat · New York