Twombly shot down
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a conspiracy in restraint of trade can be inferred from the parallel behavior of competitors.
As to the ILECs’ supposed agreement to disobey the 1996 Act and thwart the CLECs’ attempts to compete, the District Court correctly found that nothing in the complaint intimates that resisting the upstarts was anything more than the natural, unilateral reaction of each ILEC intent on preserving its regional dominance.A contrary ruling would have subjected every business entity to antitrust liability merely because it has a similar business plan as that of its main competitors, thus imposing an "originality for the sake of originality" mandate on the marketplace.
The case is Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which is discussed here, here and here.
