Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly has shaped antitrust law more than any other case in the past decade (550 U.S. 544 (2007)). The Twombly standard is clear: a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to suggest its claim is plausible on its face. However, the way lower courts apply the standard can vary substantially. Practical Law has reviewed how courts have analyzed motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims between 2012 and 2015 in five of the most active antitrust jurisdictions.

Practical Law's charts analyze and track significant antitrust motion to dismiss decisions in key district courts. These resources offer both an at-a-glance assessment of how courts apply Twombly and a case-by-case breakdown of the allegations courts found sufficient or insufficient under the Twombly framework in districts with the most active antitrust case loads:

Practical Law's charts provide a statistical look at how five jurisdictions with heavy antitrust case loads decided motions to dismiss under Twombly between 2012 and 2015. Across the five jurisdictions, 63% of motions to dismiss were granted as to the federal antitrust claims and 22% were denied. The remainder (15%) were granted in part and denied in part, either as to certain defendants or certain claims. However, there is notable variation between different jurisdictions.

The most active jurisdiction is the Northern District of California, which issued 67 decisions (as available on Westlaw) addressing motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims between 2012 and 2015. This district also had the highest rate of denying motions to dismiss. For the federal antitrust claims, of the 67 motions to dismiss:

The Southern District of New York issued 38 decisions addressing motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims between 2012 and 2015. For the federal antitrust claims, of the 38 motions to dismiss:

The Northern District of Illinois issued 25 decisions addressing motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims between 2012 and 2015. This district had the highest rate of granting motions to dismiss. For the federal antitrust claims, of the 25 motions to dismiss:

The Central District of California issued 23 decisions addressing motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims between 2012 and 2015. For the federal antitrust claims, of the 23 motions to dismiss:

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued 21 decisions addressing motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims between 2012 and 2015. For the federal antitrust claims, of the 21 motions to dismiss:

For further discussion of Twombly and the allegations needed to successfully state an antitrust claim, see Practice Note, Twombly's Effect on Antitrust Pleading Standards.