Supreme Court hears arguments in Anderson v. Intel ERISA pleading-standard case

On October 6, the Supreme Court heard argument in Anderson v. Intel, a case that sets the pleading standard for ERISA retirement-plan claims. The underlying suit, first filed in 2019 by a former Intel 401(k) participant, challenges Intel fiduciaries' decision to allocate portions of custom target-date and diversified funds to hedge funds and private equity, and petitioners contend Intel allocated substantially more of the funds' assets to hedge funds and private equity than comparable retirement funds, resulting in higher fees and lower returns. The Ninth Circuit had held that allegations of inferior returns or higher costs alone are insufficient and that plaintiffs relying on comparisons to alternative investments must provide a sound basis for those comparisons, the holding petitioners are now asking the Justices to review. No ruling has issued; the allegations against Intel's fiduciaries remain unproven.

Why it matters. A ruling tightening or loosening the pleading bar for ERISA fund-underperformance claims could directly affect how plaintiff-side firms plead 401(k) and 403(b) excessive-fee and imprudent-investment class actions nationwide.

Update, Oct. 8, 2026: Reporting on the Oct. 6 oral argument said the Justices appeared receptive to affirming the Ninth Circuit's 'meaningful benchmark' pleading standard for ERISA fund-underperformance claims.