Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

This opinion may be safely relied on only when a § 1 Sherman Act claim is evaluated at the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading stage and the complaint rests solely on allegations of parallel conduct without additional nonconclusory factual matter plausibly suggesting an agreement, where the alleged facts are equally consistent with lawful independent action. Its reasoning supports dismissal only insofar as the complaint lacks factual enhancement that would nudge the inference of conspiracy beyond an obvious lawful, nondiscriminatory explanation and the court is applying Rule 8’s plausibility threshold without weighing evidence, resolving factual disputes, or applying a heightened pleading regime. It does not resolve what specific additional facts suffice to plead agreement, how similar allegations should be treated at later litigation stages or under different standards of review, or whether the alleged conduct would be unlawful if supported by developed facts, and reliance beyond these conditions risks extending the decision beyond its posture-bound holding.