| Bell Atlantic v. Twombly | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 27, 2006 Decided May 21, 2007 | |
| Full case name | Bell Atlantic Corporation, BellSouth Corporation, Qwest Communications International Inc., SBC Communications Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc. (successor-in-interest to Bell Atlantic Corporation) v. William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
| Docket no. | 05-1126 |
| Citations | 550 U.S. 544 (more) 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 75 U.S.L.W. 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases ¶ 75,709, 68 Fed.R.Serv.3d 661, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5550, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7097, 41 Communications Reg. (P&F) 567, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Complaint dismissed, 313 F. Supp. 2d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), vacated and remanded, 425 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 548 U.S. 903 (2006). |
| Holding | |
| Parallel conduct alone, absent some evidence of agreement to engage in anti-competitive behavior, is not sufficient to prove a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. A complaint must allege facts with sufficient specificity to state a claim for relief that is plausible, not merely conceivable, on its face. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg (except Part IV) |
| Laws applied | |
| Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 12(b)(6) | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Conley v. Gibson (1957) | |
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure. Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It also heightened the pleading requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for plaintiffs to include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible or conceivable, that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. The latter change in the law has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, as evidenced by the dissenting opinion from Justice John Paul Stevens.[1]