Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly: The Supreme Court Raises Pleading Standards For Allegations Of Antitrust Conspiracies

The Supreme Court issued a noteworthy decision today that raises the pleading standards for plaintiffs alleging conspiracies in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, is important for businesses because it limits plaintiffs' ability to bring speculative antitrust claims that lead to expensive discovery and set in motion the heavy machinery of antitrust litigation. Plaintiffs must now allege facts to support a "plausible" showing that the challenged conduct is the product of conspiracy rather than independent decision-making; allegations of parallel conduct that are "consistent with" a conspiracy, coupled with a conclusory assertion that a conspiracy existed, are insufficient.

Background

The case involved allegations that the Baby Bells that emerged from the breakup of AT&T (known as ILECs, or incumbent local exchange carriers) had conspired in two respects: first, to deny competitors access to their regional telecommunications networks, and second, to refrain from competing with one another in their respective markets. As evidence of the conspiracy, plaintiffs alleged that the ILECs had thwarted the efforts of CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers) to access their networks, and that each had declined to compete outside of their own home regions. The Supreme Court reasoned that although the defendants' conduct was parallel, it was consistent with independent decision-making, as each had an interest in avoiding competition from either the CLECs or their fellow ILECs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court, reversing the Second Circuit, held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint.

Key Implications

The key implications of Twombly are:

Pleading Standard: Twombly reaffirms that plaintiffs' antitrust claims must be plausible and that allegations giving rise only to the possibility of a violation are insufficient. Because the Twombly plaintiffs' allegations of parallel conduct by the telephone companies were not enough to "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," the Supreme Court held that the district court properly dismissed their claims.

Sufficiency of Allegations: Twombly holds that a plaintiff's complaint must contain "enough factual matter" to suggest there was an agreement among the defendants to restrain trade. An allegation that the defendants engaged in parallel business behavior, and that this behavior was the product of conspiracy, is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT