Bell Atlantic Corporation v.

Twombly
Facts: Respondent users of local telephone and Internet services brought
a lawsuit against petitioner local exchange providers, alleging that the
carriers engaged in parallel conduct in violation of section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. section 1. The district court dismissed the
lawsuit after concluding that allegations of identical commercial activity
do not constitute a claim under section 1; the plaintiffs must establish
additional facts tending to exclude independent self-interested conduct
as an explanation for the comparable actions. Nonetheless, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that the subscribers
stated their argument effectively.

Issue: Have the respondent subscribers provided a claim that satisfies

the requirements of §1 of the Sherman Act?

Rule: While a complaint challenged by a Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not require detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to establish his entitlement to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. A petition for redress
must be supported by enough factual claims to surpass the barrier of
conjecture.

Application: The answer to the question of this case is no.

The court concluded that in order to make a claim of type 1, a complaint
must include sufficient (presumed true) factual data to suggest an
agreement was reached. In this instance, the existence of an antitrust
conspiracy was not inferred by the evidence, hence claim 1 is incorrect.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires just a short and plain
description of the claim demonstrating that the pleader is entitled to
relief in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests as required by Conley v. Gibson. This
takes more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic listing of the
components of a cause of action is inadequate.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the
subscribers' allegations that the carriers engaged in anticompetitive
similar activity were insufficient to sustain a Sherman Act claim.
According to the court, assertions of analogous conduct had to be
presented in a factual context that supported a believable inference of a
previous agreement.