Supreme Court hears how 401(k) underperformance claims should be compared
The Supreme Court heard Anderson v. Intel on October 6, asking whether a retirement-plan underperformance lawsuit must identify a meaningful investment benchmark before it can proceed.
When a retirement fund trails another investment, how similar must the comparison be before a lawsuit can move forward?
The Supreme Court heard that question on October 6 in Anderson v. Intel, a challenge concerning the duty of prudence under federal retirement law. [1][2]
The dispute concerns the initial pleading stage: whether an underperformance claim must identify a meaningful benchmark. Bloomberg Law’s argument report describes justices testing comparisons between funds with similar objectives without demanding identical investments. The court has heard argument, not decided the case. [2][3]
The broader lesson for retirement savers is a useful question rather than a new trading instruction: compared with what, at what risk, and toward which objective? A return difference alone does not resolve whether a plan was managed prudently. The pending ruling concerns how such allegations enter court; it does not establish that a particular replacement investment is better. [2][3]
Sources & details 3 sources
Discuss in your voice app
Take the reporting, visual explanations and original sources into a conversation. Copy the brief, paste it into your preferred assistant, then start its voice mode.
Paste the brief into your voice app to discuss this reporting.Revised 9 October 2026. Copy edited 9 October to remove commentary about graphic design; reported claims, qualifications and source dates preserved.
Reporting sources
- US Supreme Court · Anderson v. Intel docket
Official docket records oral argument on October 6, 2026; no merits ruling is represented here.
- US Supreme Court · Question presented
Original one-page question concerns a meaningful benchmark at the pleading stage for ERISA prudence claims predicated on underperformance.
- Bloomberg Law · October 6 argument reporting
Independent reporting from the argument distinguishes similar objectives from identical funds and describes the procedural dispute.
Images & figures
Schematic of the pleading-stage question in Anderson v. Intel: must an underperformance claim identify a meaningful investment benchmark to proceed? Both endpoints are possible procedural outcomes. The Supreme Court heard argument October 6; this does not depict a ruling or decide whether Intel’s investments were prudent.
Euangelion · original explanatory figure · Source · Usage terms