A New Mexico appellate court in Romero v. Philip Morris, et al. reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of tobacco companies, reinstating a price fixing claim. Relying on the plaintiffs’ expert, the court held that the allegations were sufficient to support a conspiracy claim. The plaintiffs alleged that that tobacco companies altered the pricing policies in similar ways that could not reasonably have resulted from unilateral decision-making. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of two companies, finding that with respect to them the allegations were as consistent with conscious parallelism as with conspiracy.