Policy and Guidelines for Antitrust Compliance


(As Adopted February 12, 1993)


The antitrust laws are among the most important of all federal and state laws affecting associations such as the Casualty Actuarial Society. The purpose of the antitrust laws is to preserve fair and honest competition. It is the long­standing and undeviating policy of the Casualty Actuarial Society to comply in all respects with the letter and spirit of the antitrust laws.


To ensure compliance with federal and state antitrust laws, CAS members are responsible for understanding those laws. The CAS Guidelines for Antitrust Compliance are adopted as a part of this Antitrust Compliance Policy. Members of the Casualty Actuarial Society are urged to become familiar with the antitrust laws as set forth in the Guidelines. It is also the policy of the Society that educational presentations on antitrust issues are periodically presented to the membership.


A detailed agenda is prepared for each meeting planned by the Society. If potential antitrust questions are raised by agenda items, they are reviewed in advance by legal counsel. The agenda is distributed to participants prior to the meeting.


Meetings of the Casualty Actuarial Society are regularly scheduled. Meetings follow the prepared agenda. Counsel is invited to be present at meetings at which antitrust­ sensitive issues are to be discussed.


Accurate minutes are kept of all Casualty Actuarial Society Board of Directors and Executive Council meetings. The minutes of the preceding meeting are read and adopted before the start of the following meeting. After the minutes have been adopted, they are promptly distributed to attendees.


Records of the CAS reflect a factual, objective, and businesslike account of the activities of the Society without retaining useless or outdated information. Notes taken at meetings and drafts of documents having no further lasting value are discarded.


All meetings or sessions held by the Casualty Actuarial Society shall fully comply with this Antitrust Compliance Policy.



The antitrust laws were first created nearly a century ago to preserve and promote free and fair competition throughout the United States economy. Antitrust laws advance competition by preventing businesses and professionals from engaging in anticompetitive conduct such as price ­fixing, market allocation, boycotts, monopolies, and other activities that limit free trade. Associations like the Casualty Actuarial Society, by bringing together actuarial professionals and facilitating the exchange of ideas and information among those professionals, have the potential to undermine competition. It should be no surprise that associations are examined with a suspicious eye by government enforcers under the antitrust laws. Because associations are watched so carefully, the CAS must be especially vigilant to be sure all of its policies and programs are in compliance with antitrust requirements.

The Casualty Actuarial Society recognizes the importance of the antitrust laws. It is the long­standing and undeviating policy of the Casualty Actuarial Society to comply strictly with both the letter and spirit of these laws. To help assure that every aspect of the CAS is in accord with antitrust strictures, these guidelines address: (1) the areas of antitrust which may relate to the CAS and its members, (2) the dangers that must be avoided to minimize the risk of antitrust liability, and (3) policies and procedures to follow in the area of competition. Members should be aware, however, that these guidelines cannot address every potential area of antitrust concern for the CAS and its members. Whenever there is doubt, it is the policy of the CAS to seek the assistance of legal counsel experienced in antitrust matters.


The basic federal antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Robinson­-Patman Act.

The Sherman Act prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade in interstate commerce. Among the agreements prohibited by the Sherman Act are those that involve price fixing; allocation of markets or customers; and boycotts of competitors, suppliers, or customers. The Sherman Act also condemns monopolization.

The Clayton Act prohibits various kinds of business behavior which tend to lessen competition or monopolize trade. Among the activities prohibited by the Clayton Act are exclusive dealing arrangements, acquisitions, and mergers which tend to lessen competition.

The Federal Trade Commission Act, in addition to prohibiting the anticompetitive activities made illegal by the Sherman and Clayton Acts, bans unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices. Unlike the Sherman and Clayton Acts, where most of what is prohibited requires the action of two or more parties, individuals or firms can be liable under the Federal Trade Commission Act even though they did not act in concert with others.

The Robinson­-Patman Act prohibits price discrimination where the effect is to lessen competition.

In addition to the federal laws, most states have enacted statutes similar to the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The federal antitrust laws may not apply to some otherwise anticompetitive activities of the Casualty Actuarial Society and its members because there is an exemption under the McCarran­-Ferguson Act for those engaged in the "business of insurance." However, state antitrust laws might well still be applicable in those situations. It is impossible for these summary guidelines to outline each state's antitrust laws. When particular questions arise, the Casualty Actuarial Society and its members must look to their own states' antitrust laws and enforcement mechanisms. In the meantime, it is prudent to use the federal antitrust laws for general guidance.


The Sherman Act is enforced by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice and by the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission, as well as through private suits for three times actual damages ("treble damages") that can be brought by those who claim they have been injured as a result of antitrust violations. The government may bring either civil or criminal suits. The remedy for a civil suit in an action brought by the government is an injunction prohibiting the offender from future violations. Criminal penalties can include fines, imprisonment, or both.

Sherman Act violations carry stiff fines with the added deterrent of significant jail terms. A violation of the Act is a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison. In addition, steep fines can be imposed for Sherman Act violations.

The Federal Trade Commission enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act by issuing cease and desist orders to stop practices found to violate the law. The violation of a Commission order may result in a penalty of as much as $10,000 per day. Any association, such as the Casualty Actuarial Society, that is adjudged to be in violation of the antitrust laws can be dissolved by court order.

It is important to note that each party found liable, no matter how small a role that party played, can be held liable for all damages caused by all participants in the antitrust conspiracy. The legal costs incurred in defending an antitrust challenge, beyond the penalties that might ultimately be imposed, frequently run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some associations have paid millions of dollars to defend themselves in especially long or complex antitrust suits.


Focusing on the federal antitrust laws, of principal concern to the Casualty Actuarial Society and its members is Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which renders illegal all "contracts, combinations, and conspiracies" in restraint of trade in interstate commerce. Section 1 is interpreted to prohibit only agreements which have the effect of unreasonably restraining trade. A violation of the law occurs when, upon examination of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct in question, it is determined that trade is unreasonably restrained.

Certain activities are regarded by courts as unreasonable by their very nature and are considered illegal per se. When an activity is designated a per se antitrust violation, a conclusive presumption is created that the activity was engaged in for no other purpose than to restrain trade. Practices within the per se category include agreements to fix or set prices, fees, rates, or commissions, as well as certain kinds of agreements to boycott competitors, suppliers, or customers. Note that the concept of "price fixing" encompasses agreements not only to raise prices but also to lower or stabilize prices. Virtually any agreement, arrangement, or understanding among competitors that involves tampering with free market prices, fees, rates, or premiums is a per se antitrust law violation.

The Sherman Act prohibition extends to any such agreement, whether written or oral, formal or informal, express or implicit. Only rarely is an anticompetitive agreement set out clearly in a written document. Antitrust liability is more often found by examining a course of business conduct from which a jury can infer the existence of an illegal conspiracy. The circumstances may be entirely innocent and lawful when viewed separately. But the same circumstances, when viewed in the aggregate, may be held to constitute an antitrust conspiracy.

Under the McCarran­-Ferguson Act, the "business of insurance" is exempted from the federal antitrust laws when a state has regulated particular insurance activity. The McCarran­-Ferguson Act exemption applies to three kinds of practices within the insurance business: Practices that transfer or spread policyholders' risks, practices that are integral to the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured, and practices that are limited in effect to entities in the insurance industry. Under the McCarran-­Ferguson Act, if an activity involves one of these three kinds of practices, and if the state has regulated that aspect of the insurance industry (as most have), federal antitrust laws do not apply. But state antitrust laws will apply unless the state also specifically exempts the "business of insurance" from its antitrust laws (many have not).

Despite the exemption from federal antitrust law in some instances, Casualty Actuarial Society members cannot afford to ignore the federal laws. Interpretation of the McCarran­-Ferguson Act has narrowed the scope of the three "business of insurance" practices. For this reason, it is the policy of the CAS not to rely exclusively on the McCarran­-Ferguson exemption, but also to carefully undertake all activities to avoid anticompetitive effects.


The legality of activities of associations and their members under the antitrust laws is determined according to standards no different from those used to determine the legality of the activities of other persons or firms. Special problems do arise, however, from the basic nature of an association. Many of an association's most fundamental policies and valuable programs directly impinge upon areas of particular antitrust concern.

The essential principle which should guide the policies and programs of the Casualty Actuarial Society and its members in order to avoid antitrust violations is that no illegal agreements, arrangements, or understandings should be reached or carried out through the Society. Conduct which might even give the appearance of an illegal agreement should also be avoided. Officers, directors, members and staff of the CAS should be alert to conduct that might fall into areas of particular antitrust concern.

In analyzing whether information to be exchanged at any Casualty Actuarial Society meeting or seminar is acceptable under antitrust guidelines, two critical questions must be asked. These are:

  1. How does the information relate to the competitive behavior of the companies or firms represented by participants?
  2. How does the information affect the independent business decisions of the companies or firms represented by participants?

As a general rule, if the exchange of information relates to the future competitive behavior of an individual company or will affect the independent business decisions of an individual company, then it is prohibited by these guidelines. More specific guidelines are as follows:

  1. Discussion or exchange of information at Casualty Actuarial Society meetings or seminars concerning future price information or future competitive positions of an individual company or companies are prohibited.
  2. Discussions or exchange of information at Casualty Actuarial Society meetings or seminars concerning current and future underwriting rules that deal with the eligibility for insurance with a particular company are prohibited.
  3. Information concerning current experience of an individual competitor may, in some circumstances, be viewed as a means of "signaling" future pricing or business decisions. It is, therefore, potentially suspect, and should not be presented or exchanged without an affirmatively stated purpose that is consistent with current industry­wide data or experience and with competitive objectives.
  4. Where an interpretation or analysis of information concerning past or current experience or prices is exchanged, the risk that the collective action will be linked to future market conduct is substantially increased. The prediction of a trend and its implications is, as a general rule, a matter for individual and independent decision ­making.
  5. A description of an actuarial methodology or mode of analysis of data and its logical internal consistency and past predictive accuracy is not a violation of the antitrust laws. Such a description, however, must be undertaken with extreme care to avoid being viewed as a means of "signaling" future pricing decisions. Any application or example of the methodology or analysis should be presented using insurance company experience that is generally available to the public or is hypothetical in nature rather than the past or current experience of any actual individual competitor.

In conclusion, the Casualty Actuarial Society policy prohibits any activities that could be considered anticompetitive or in violation of the antitrust laws. Any questions about the issues should be addressed to legal counsel.