The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether ERISA plaintiffs must use “meaningful benchmarks” when challenging 401(k) investment decisions, a test that could reset how fiduciary-breach cases are argued.
That benchmark standard matters because retirement-industry groups say it could either narrow litigation risk for plan sponsors and fiduciaries or, if rejected, leave more room for lawsuits over fund selection and performance.
401(k) cases often turn on whether an investment underperformed an appropriate comparator, making the court’s definition of a valid benchmark central to both plaintiff claims and sponsor defenses.
The decision could ripple across the retirement industry by shaping future ERISA pleading standards, litigation strategy and oversight of workplace savings plans.
How will the Supreme Court's benchmark ruling alter the balance of power between 401(k) savers and plan fiduciaries?
As 401(k)s embrace complex assets, can any single benchmark truly measure if an investment choice was prudent?
Defining "Meaningful Benchmark": How the Supreme Court’s Anderson v. Intel Ruling Will Reshape 401(k) Litigation and Fiduciary Risk
Overview
The Supreme Court is set to make a landmark decision in the Anderson v. Intel case during the 2026-2027 term, which will shape how 401(k) investment challenges are handled nationwide. The case began in 2019 when plaintiffs claimed Intel’s retirement plan put up to 50% of employee savings into alternative investments like hedge funds and private equity, far more than typical industry levels. After the case was dismissed for failing to state a claim, the focus shifted to what counts as a 'meaningful benchmark' for judging investment performance. The upcoming ruling will clarify how plan participants can challenge investment choices and set important standards for fiduciary responsibility.