Bell Atlantic Corporation, et al. v. William Twombly, et al. (550 U.S. 544)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 21, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 550 U.S. 544 · 127 S. Ct. 1955
- Decided
- May 21, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
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 competition, absent some factual context suggesting agreement, as distinct from identical, independent action. We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed. I 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 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 “subjected] [ILECs] to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry.” AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 371 (1999). In recompense, the 1996 Act set conditions for authorizing ILECs to enter the long-distance…
Excerpt of a 48,954-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.