## Facts

- Radiant Burners, Inc., an Illinois manufacturer, sold a ceramic gas burner in interstate commerce for building heating.
- American Gas Association, Inc. (AGA), a trade association, operated testing laboratories and issued a “seal of approval” for gas burners it approved.
- Radiant alleged AGA’s testing was not based on objective standards and could be controlled by member companies, including firms competing with Radiant.
- Radiant submitted its burner for approval twice; AGA did not approve it, despite Radiant’s allegation that the product was safer, more efficient, and as durable as approved burners.
- Radiant alleged that AGA and certain member utilities and related firms carried out a combination and conspiracy by refusing to supply gas for use in burners lacking AGA approval.
- Because purchasers would not buy burners that could not obtain gas service, Radiant alleged it was effectively excluded from the market and suffered lost profits.
- Radiant sued for treble damages and injunctive relief under Clayton Act § 4, alleging a Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy restraining trade; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint’s allegations, taken as true, stated a claim for relief under Sherman Act § 1 sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in a Clayton Act § 4 action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court held it was error to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss, a Sherman Act § 1 complaint is sufficient if it alleges a combination or conspiracy that plausibly restrains trade and causes antitrust injury; the merits are not decided at the pleading stage.
- Allegations of a concerted refusal to deal (group boycott) that excludes a competitor from a market can state a § 1 claim, including when coordinated through a trade association’s approval program.
- A trade association’s “seal of approval” process, if allegedly influenced by competitors and linked to refusals by utilities to supply an essential input, may constitute collective exclusion actionable under federal antitrust law.

## Conclusion

The Court held that allegations that a trade association and member utilities used a nonobjective approval program and coordinated refusals to supply gas to exclude a rival burner manufacturer were enough to state a Sherman Act § 1 claim, so dismissal at the pleading stage was improper.


Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656 (1961)