''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly'', 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States involving
antitrust law
Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. Competition law is implemented through public and private enforcement. It is also known as antitrust ...
and
civil procedure
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits (as opposed to procedures in criminal law matters). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kin ...
. Authored by Justice
David Souter
David Hackett Souter ( ; born September 17, 1939) is an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1990 until his retirement in 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat ...
, 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
In law as practiced in countries that follow the English models, a pleading is a formal written statement of a party's claims or defenses to another party's claims in a civil action. The parties' pleadings in a case define the issues to be adju ...
requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for
plaintiff
A plaintiff ( Π in legal shorthand) is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an ''action'') before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy. If this search is successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of t ...
s 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.
Background
William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus brought a class-action lawsuit alleging that
Bell Atlantic
Verizon Communications Inc., commonly known as Verizon, is an American multinational telecommunications conglomerate and a corporate component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The company is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas i ...
and the
Baby Bells
The Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC) are the result of '' United States v. AT&T'', the U.S. Department of Justice antitrust suit against the former American Telephone & Telegraph Company (later known as AT&T Corp.). On January 8, 19 ...
(successor companies to the
trust-busted AT&T
AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas. It is the world's largest telecommunications company by revenue and the third largest provider of mobile te ...
) had engaged in anti-competitive behavior in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the companies had acted to disadvantage smaller telephone companies and charge consumers more by, for example, refraining from entering markets where another large company was dominant (thereby preventing a price war), even though the
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a United States federal law enacted by the 104th United States Congress on January 3, 1996, and signed into law on February 8, 1996, by President Bill Clinton. It primarily amended Chapter 5 of Title 47 of ...
had made it relatively inexpensive to do so.
["''Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly''"]
The Oyez Project
The Oyez Project at the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law is an unofficial online multimedia archive of the Supreme Court of the United States, especially audio of oral arguments. The website "aims to be a complete a ...
at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Chicago-Kent College of Law is the law school affiliated with the Illinois Institute of Technology. It is the second oldest law school in the state of Illinois. It is ranked 91st among U.S. law schools, and its trial advocacy program is ranked in ...
. The lawsuit alleged a conspiracy between the Baby Bells to not compete. As examples, the lawsuit noted that
Qwest
Qwest Communications International, Inc. was a United States telecommunications carrier. Qwest provided local service in 14 western and midwestern U.S. states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dako ...
did not compete in California despite having business in all the surrounding states, and that
Verizon
Verizon Communications Inc., commonly known as Verizon, is an American multinational telecommunications conglomerate and a corporate component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The company is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas ...
did no business in Connecticut despite having a monopoly in all the surrounding states.
Their complaint was dismissed by Judge
Gerard E. Lynch of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as failing to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for a violation of the Sherman Act. The decision was reversed by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (in case citations, 2d Cir.) is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. Its territory comprises the states of Connecticut, New York and Vermont. The court has appellate juri ...
, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2006.
Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit, which had reversed the decision of the district court (Lynch D.J.) dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As an initial matter, the Supreme Court clarified the requirements of proving a claim of anti-competitive behavior under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act prohibits entering into a "contract, combination, or conspiracy" to restrain trade. The court held that while parallel conduct (actions by competing companies that might be seen as implying some agreement to work together) is "admissible
circumstantial evidence" from which an agreement to engage in anti-competitive behavior may be inferred, parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove a Sherman Act claim.
The court then upheld the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that the mere allegations contained in the complaint that the competitors had agreed not to compete were insufficient to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act. The court found that Twombly's complaint had not provided enough facts for the court to find it plausible that the companies had engaged in a conspiracy; instead, the complaint provided factual bases for parallel conduct, not enough under the court's new interpretation of the Sherman Act, and stated only that an agreement had taken place, with no details to support that allegation. The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was therefore proper.
The decision changed the existing interpretation of the notice pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and the standards for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by creating a new, stricter standard of a pleading's required specificity.
Previously, under the standard the court set forth in ''
Conley v. Gibson'', a complaint needed to state only a "conceivable" set of facts to support its legal claims. In other words, a court could not dismiss claims unless it appeared, beyond a reasonable doubt, that plaintiffs would be able to prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief. In ''Twombly'', the court adopted a stricter "plausibility" standard that required "enough fact
to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery
Discovery may refer to:
* Discovery (observation), observing or finding something unknown
* Discovery (fiction), a character's learning something unknown
* Discovery (law), a process in courts of law relating to evidence
Discovery, The Discover ...
will reveal evidence of illegal agreement."
The ''Twombly'' test however remained vague, and the legal establishment was stumped as how to interpret the "plausibility" standard, even though it was not supposed to be a heightened pleading standard, as the Court said in footnote 14.
The general applicability of this heightened standard of pleading outside of antitrust cases was established in ''
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
''Ashcroft v. Iqbal'', 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside ''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly'' (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised th ...
'', when the court also provided guidance as to how lower courts should apply the ''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly'' test:
The two cases are often jointly referred to as ''
Twiqbal Twiqbal is a colloquial term in American law (civil procedure), referring to two separate US Supreme Court cases that together made it more difficult to sue in federal court, by requiring that plaintiffs demonstrate that their claims are "plausible" ...
''.
The case was argued successfully by Michael K. Kellogg of
law firm Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel and Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General of the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division is a division of the U.S. Department of Justice that enforces U.S. antitrust law. It has exclusive jurisdiction over U.S. federal criminal antitrust prosecutions. It also has jurisdic ...
, on behalf of the United States as
amicus curiae for the petitioners.
''Twombly'' remains controversial as of 2020. Not only did it overturn ''Conley v. Gibson'', but it also overturned ''
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit'', 507 U.S. 163 (1992). ''Leatherman'' had unanimously established that the heightened pleading standard was fundamentally at odds with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court opined that the only way to change the standard would be to amend the Rules. The Court had further cemented this idea with another unanimous ruling in ''
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A.'', 534 U.S. 500 (2002), making ''Twombly'' all the more surprising.
Legislative reaction
On July 22, 2009, after the Supreme Court broadened ''Twombly'' with its decision in ''Iqbal'', Senator
Arlen Specter
Arlen Specter (February 12, 1930 – October 14, 2012) was an American lawyer, author and politician who served as a United States Senator from Pennsylvania from 1981 to 2011. Specter was a Democrat from 1951 to 1965, then a Republican fr ...
introduced the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, which provided:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of Congress or by an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which takes effect after the date of enactment of this Act, a Federal court shall not dismiss a complaint under rule 12(b)(6) or (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in '' Conley v. Gibson'', 355 U.S. 41 (1957).4
Shortly thereafter, a similar bill was introduced in the
US House of Representatives
The United States House of Representatives, often referred to as the House of Representatives, the U.S. House, or simply the House, is the lower chamber of the United States Congress, with the Senate being the upper chamber. Together they ...
. It was called the "
Open Access to Courts Act of 2009
Open or OPEN may refer to:
Music
* Open (band), Australian pop/rock band
* The Open (band), English indie rock band
* ''Open'' (Blues Image album), 1969
* ''Open'' (Gotthard album), 1999
* ''Open'' (Cowboy Junkies album), 2001
* ''Open'' ( ...
:"
A court shall not dismiss a complaint under subdivision (b)(6), (c) or (e) of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. A court shall not dismiss a complaint under one of those subdivisions on the basis of a determination by the judge that the factual contents of the complaint do not show the plaintiff's claim to be plausible or are insufficient to warrant a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Neither bill ever made it to the floor for a vote.
See also
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 550
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 550 (2006–2007) of the ''United States Reports
The ''United States Reports'' () are the official record ( law reports) of the Supreme Court of the United States. They in ...
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases
This page serves as an index of lists of United States Supreme Court cases. The United States Supreme Court is the highest federal court of the United States.
By Chief Justice
Court historians and other legal scholars consider each Chief J ...
* ''
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
''Ashcroft v. Iqbal'', 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside ''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly'' (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised th ...
''
References
External links
*
''Bell Atlantic v. Twombly'' case brief{dead link, date=October 2016 , bot=InternetArchiveBot , fix-attempted=yes
United States Supreme Court cases
United States motion to dismiss case law
United States antitrust case law
2007 in United States case law
Verizon Communications litigation
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court