Financial Planning reported on October 16, 2026, that the Supreme Court is weighing what kinds of investment benchmarks plaintiffs must point to when they claim their retirement savings were directed into imprudent and unnecessarily risky funds. The case is Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, No. 25-498, and it concerns challenges to certain investments made available in Intel's 401(k) plan. The justices are deciding whether a participant can proceed with such a claim without first identifying a comparison point that shows the fund fell short.
The case began in 2019, when Winston Anderson, a former Intel employee, filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to Financial Planning, the district court dismissed the claims after finding that the plaintiffs had not provided a meaningful benchmark. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal in May 2025. The Supreme Court granted review on January 16, 2026, and heard oral argument on October 6, 2026. No decision has been issued. Employees First says a decision is expected by summer 2027, while a second source points to late June 2027 as the expected window.
According to a Mondaq summary of the argument, the justices focused on whether someone suing over an underperforming fund in a workplace retirement plan must identify a meaningful benchmark to get past the pleading stage. Respondents and the United States agreed that a comparator does not need to be identical to the challenged fund. The Solicitor General urged a test that would require only that the comparator share the challenged fund's goals. Matthew Wessler of Gupta Wessler LLP presented the arguments for the petitioners, according to 401(k) Specialist. CNBC reported that analysts believe the justices seemed inclined to side with Intel. The federal government has filed a brief supporting Intel.
The lower courts are divided on the issue. AARP's Supreme Court preview says the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits generally require benchmark comparisons in underperformance cases. The Sixth Circuit, by contrast, has held that meaningful benchmarks, while relevant to the merits, are not a pleading prerequisite. A Supreme Court ruling would settle which approach governs at the pleading stage in ERISA suits.
Intel is the defendant in the case, and the lawsuit targets its plan committee rather than an investment firm. Intel is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and is listed on Nasdaq under the ticker INTC, according to Wikipedia. Intel's 2025 prospectus, filed with the SEC, says the company was incorporated in California in 1968, reincorporated in Delaware in 1989, and has its principal executive offices at 2200 Mission College Boulevard in Santa Clara. The plan committee's own disclosures, as summarized by Employees First, noted that the funds would likely trail stock-heavy funds in rising markets and carry higher fees than passive index funds.
The case also sits alongside a regulatory push on alternative investments in retirement plans. According to Financial Planning, the Department of Labor proposed a rule in March designed to give legal protection to retirement plan sponsors who recommend alternatives for 401(k)s and similar accounts. Briefs.co reported that the comment deadline for that proposal was June 1. A presidential executive order issued in August 2025 aimed to broaden access to alternative assets for 401(k) investors, according to The Bold News.
Financial Planning reported that a ruling loosening the benchmark requirement could leave plan sponsors and advisors facing higher-cost ERISA lawsuits. Until the justices rule, the pleading standard that applies will depend on the circuit in which a case is filed.