Twombly Affects All Elements Of Antitrust Claims

Law360, New York (February 14, 2014, 12:44 PM EST) -- ​Seven years ago in Bell Atlantic Co. v. Twombly, the U.S. Supreme Court injected a “plausibility” standard into Rule 12(b)(6) practice and held that a plausible antitrust conspiracy claim must be based on more than just parallel conduct by the alleged conspirators.[1]

Since then, volumes have been written by the lower courts, scholars and practitioners attempting to clarify what “plausible” means, the types of additional allegations are required to raise “plausible grounds to infer an agreement,”[2] whether a plaintiff alleging parallel conduct is also required to...
To view the full article, register now.