Also known as: Twombly Iqbal test · Twombly/Iqbal · Iqbal Twombly · Twombly standard · Iqbal standard · plausibility standard · plausibility pleading
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 that requires a complaint to allege enough factual matter to state a claim plausible on its face rather than merely possible or consistent with liability. Courts first identify and accept as true only the well-pleaded factual allegations. They then determine whether those allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Metro Freight sued Titan Transport and Continental Haulage alleging price fixing. The complaint stated that the carriers simultaneously adopted identical fuel surcharge charts announced in trade newsletters. No facts showed any communications or meetings between the carriers. The court granted the motion to dismiss because the allegations described only parallel conduct equally consistent with lawful independent action.
Erin sued Brook Ag alleging that supervisors routinely threatened deportation to suppress wages. The complaint used the phrase routinely threatened deportation but named no supervisors, supplied no dates, and identified no specific workers who heard any threat. The court granted the motion to dismiss because the allegations amounted to bare conclusions unsupported by particularized facts that would render the scheme plausible.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A plaintiff must allege enough factual matter to state a claim plausible on its face. Courts disregard conclusory labels and legal conclusions. They then ask whether the remaining well-pleaded facts allow a reasonable inference of liability rather than mere possibility.
Supporting sources
Parallel conduct alone does not state a plausible claim. The complaint must supply additional facts that tend to exclude the possibility of independent lawful action. Facts such as meetings followed by uniform terms may support an inference of agreement when they render conspiracy more likely than coincidence.
Supporting sources
Courts accept only the well-pleaded factual allegations as true. They disregard threadbare recitals of the elements and conclusory assertions. The remaining facts must then plausibly support an entitlement to relief.
Supporting sources
No. The plausibility standard applies to ordinary claims under Rule 8. Fraud and mistake require heightened particularity under Rule 9(b). Antitrust conspiracy claims remain subject only to the plausibility standard.
Supporting sources
…merely parallel behavior explained in Theatre Enterprises , Monsanto , and Matsushita , and their main argument against the plausibility standard at the pleading stage is its ostensible conflict with an early statement construing Rule 8. Justice Black's opinion for the Court in Conley v. Gibson spoke not only of the need for fair…