On June 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. that U.S. federal courts deciding matters of foreign law should give consideration to a foreign government’s explanation of its law, but that courts are not required to give such submissions conclusive effect. The case concerned a multidistrict class action lawsuit brought by U.S. vitamin purchasers against Chinese vitamin sellers that had agreed to fix vitamin prices and create a supply shortage on exports to the United States in violation of U.S. law. Respondents argued they had taken such actions because of Chinese government regulations requiring them to do so, shielding them from U.S. antitrust laws, and the Chinese government filed an amicus brief stating that their actions were part of a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government. The Supreme Court noted that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 a court’s determination of foreign law “must be treated as ruling on a question of law,” but does not address the weight a foreign government’s view should be given. On international comity grounds, the Court stated that “a federal court should carefully consider a foreign state’s views about the meaning of its own laws,” but “is neither bound to adopt the foreign government’s characterization nor required to ignore other relevant materials.” The weight accorded these views will be dependent on the case and various factors that may “include the statement’s clarity, thoroughness, and support; its context and purpose; the transparency of the foreign legal system; the role and authority of the entity or official offering the statement; and the statement’s consistency with the foreign government’s past positions.”