Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
Supreme Court of the United States
November 27, 2006, Argued ; May 21, 2007, Decided
[*548] [**1961] Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
Liability under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, requires a "contract, combination . . ., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce." The question in this putative class action is whether a § 1 complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges that major telecommunications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to [*549] competition, absent some factual context suggesting agreement, as distinct from identical, independent action. We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed.
The upshot of the 1984 divestiture of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company's (AT&T) local telephone business was a system of regional service monopolies (variously called "Regional Bell Operating Companies," "Baby Bells," or "Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers" (ILECs)), and a separate, competitive market for long-distance service from which the ILECs were excluded. More than a decade [****11] later, Congress withdrew approval of the ILECs' monopolies by enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), 110 Stat. 56, which "fundamentally restructure[d] local telephone markets" and "subject[ed] [ILECs] to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry." AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 371, 119 S. Ct. 721, 142 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1999). In recompense, the 1996 Act set conditions for authorizing ILECs to enter the long-distance market. See 47 U.S.C. § 271.
"Central to the [new] scheme [was each ILEC's] obligation . . . to share its network with competitors," Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 402, 124 S. Ct. 872, 157 L. Ed. 2d 823 (2004), which came to be known as "competitive local exchange carriers" (CLECs), Pet. for Cert. 6, n 1. A CLEC could make use of an ILEC's network in any of three ways: by (1) "purchas[ing] local telephone services at wholesale rates for resale to end users," (2) "leas[ing] elements of the [ILEC's] network 'on an unbundled basis,'" or (3) "interconnect[ing] its own facilities with the [ILEC's] network." Iowa Utilities Bd., supra, at 371, 119 S. Ct. 721, 142 L. Ed. 2d 834 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 251(c) [****12] ). Owing to the "considerable expense and effort" required to make unbundled network elements available to rivals at wholesale prices, Trinko, supra, at 410, 124 S. Ct. 872, 157 L. Ed. 2d 823, the ILECs vigorously litigated the scope of the sharing obligation imposed by the 1996 Act, with the result that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [***937] three times [*550] revised [**1962] its regulations to narrow the range of network elements to be shared with the CLECs. See Covad Communs. Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528, 533-534 (CADC 2006) (summarizing the 10-year-long regulatory struggle between the ILECs and CLECs).
Respondents William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus (hereinafter plaintiffs) represent a putative class consisting of all "subscribers of local telephone and/or high speed internet services . . . from February 8, 1996 to present." Amended Complaint in No. 02 CIV. 10220 (GEL) (SDNY) P 53, App. 28 (hereinafter Complaint). In this action against petitioners, a group of ILECs, plaintiffs seek treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for claimed violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1, which prohibits "[e]very contract, [****13] combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations." Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
550 U.S. 544 *; 127 S. Ct. 1955 **; 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 ***; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901 ****; 75 U.S.L.W. 4337; 2007-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75,709; 68 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 661; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267; 41 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 567
BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners v.WILLIAM TWOMBLY, et al.
Prior History: [****1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 425 F.3d 99, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21390 (2d Cir., 2005)
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.
conspiracy, discovery, allegations, pleadings, federal rule, set of facts, district court, antitrust, markets, Sherman Act, notice, territory, compete, parties, cases, rules of civil procedure, motion to dismiss, local telephone, appears, competitors, entitle, network, factual allegations, alleged conspiracy, Telecommunications, resist, antitrust case, anti trust law, pleading stage, beyond doubt
Antitrust & Trade Law, Sherman Act, Scope, General Overview, Civil Procedure, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Evidence, Burdens of Proof