Bell Atlantic Corporation, et al. v. Twombly, et al.

Whether a complaint states a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, if it alleges that the defendants engaged in parallel conduct and adds a bald assertion that the defendants were participants in a "conspiracy," without any allegations that, if later proved true, would establish the existence of a conspiracy under the applicable legal standard.

NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reject lower standards for allowing antitrust lawsuits to proceed through the judicial process. In the case, the Second Circuit overturned a district court’s dismissal of a complaint filed against four major telecommunication providers. The complaint alleged that the companies’ failure to compete in each other’s markets constituted a conspiracy sufficient to establish an agreement to restrain trade. NCLC pointed out in its brief that businesses are often engaged in parallel activities, and without having an evidentiary requirement to prove a conspiracy, any business might find itself unfairly targeted for antitrust allegations.

Agreeing with NCLC, the Supreme Court clarified that antitrust plaintiffs must have plausible grounds for believing a conspiracy exists beyond the fact of parallel conduct and rejected lower standards for allowing antitrust lawsuits to proceed through the judicial process. The high court rejected the Second Circuit's decision in the case.

Amicus brief in support of cert. 4/6/06. Review granted 6/26/06. Amicus brief on the merits 8/25/06. Oral argument held 11/27/06. Decided 5/21/07.