United States: Second Circuit Decision On Pleading Conspiracy More Welcoming To Plaintiffs

Last Updated: February 11 2013
Article by Paula W. Render, Kevin D. McDonald, Eric P. Enson and Michelle K. Fischer

The Supreme Court recently decided not to review a Second Circuit decision on the standard for pleading conspiracy, leaving in place that decision, Anderson News, LLC v. American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162 (2d. Cir. 2012).  In its opinion, the Second Circuit held that, when assessing the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings under Sherman Act § 1, the court should not question whether there are other plausible, or even more plausible, alternatives to the plaintiff's theory.  This decision in Anderson could make pleading conspiracies considerably easier for antitrust plaintiffs, at least in the very important Second Circuit.

Second Circuit precedent on assessing conspiracy claims

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly set a new standard in antitrust pleadings under Section 1.  The Court held that plaintiffs must plead "plausible grounds to infer an agreement" with "context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement."  Under well-established caselaw, allegations of parallel conduct must be accompanied by allegations of so-called "plus factors," which the Supreme Court has defined as "anything that tends to exclude independent action."  But courts and parties continue to wrestle with exactly what is required to plead conduct that crosses that line.

In a prior decision on this question, In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, the Second Circuit acknowledged that difficulty, observing that "‘considerable uncertainty' surrounds the breadth" of the Twombly decision.  The court there explained that "while Twombly does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, it does require enough facts to ‘nudge [plaintiff[s'] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'"  The Elevator decision further explained that "it is not enough to make allegations of an antitrust conspiracy that are consistent with an unlawful agreement; to be viable, a complaint must contain ‘enough factual matter'… to suggest that an agreement" actually was made.

In Elevator, the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failing to satisfy that requirement.  The plaintiffs had alleged that the defendant-elevator manufacturers violated Section 1 by conspiring to foreclose competitors from providing repair services to the defendants' elevators.  The court explained that the plaintiffs' allegations consisting solely of  parallel conduct were insufficient because, "while that conduct is consistent with conspiracy, [it is] just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market.'"  The court held that, in the absence of plausible allegations of conduct suggesting that the conduct was collusive rather than independent (in other words, allegations of plus factors), the complaint had been correctly dismissed.

Anderson News

The Second Circuit arrived at the opposite conclusion in Anderson, vacating the district court's decision dismissing the complaint.  In Anderson, the plaintiff alleged that defendant publishers and distributors of print magazines conspired to drive the plaintiff out of business after it instituted a price increase.  The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss because there was a plausible alternative to the plaintiffs' theory of harm that did not involve an illegal agreement between the plaintiffs.

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's decision.  The court held that, once the plaintiff crosses the threshold from conceivable to plausible, a court should cease weighing the likelihood that the facts provided by the plaintiff increase the chances of discovery unveiling further evidence of an agreement.  Although the Anderson district court identified equally plausible non-collusive alternatives to the plaintiff's characterization of defendants' behavior, the Second Circuit made clear that "the question is not whether there is a plausible alternative to the plaintiff's theory [but] whether there are sufficient factual allegations to make the complaint's claim plausible."  The Second Circuit found the conspiracy claims plausible because the plaintiff had pled:

  • The date, time, and location of alleged conspiratorial meetings, the parties that were involved, and an indication that these meetings were not held in the ordinary course of business;

  • Emails between defendants demonstrating that the defendants communicated about what their reactions were to a particular supplier's price increase and how they planned to respond;

  • Conversations between the defendants and plaintiff that could be construed as an implicit admission to participation in a conspiracy; and

  • A temporal relationship between the above facts and the boycotting behavior.

The district court had relied on the fact that the defendants had "a variety of reactions" when they first learned of the price increase before they allegedly conspired against the plaintiff.  Moreover, it did not believe that it would be in the defendants' best economic interests to remove the plaintiff from the market.  Despite these findings, the Second Circuit found that sufficient plus factors existed and thus the pleading contained plausible grounds to infer the existence of an agreement.

Restricting the court's inquiry in motions to dismiss

Anderson is notable because the court limited the defendant's ability to show that conduct alleged as a plus factor does not "tend to exclude independent action."  When the court is first reviewing the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, the court is permitted to assess whether the facts alleged would establish parallel conduct.  If the plaintiff's grounds for alleging a conspiracy could "conceivably" support the accusation, then the court may weigh the allegations to determine whether there is a plausible claim that the parallel conduct was due to collusive rather than unilateral decision-making, and thus determine whether it is worth the time and expense to find further evidence through discovery and trial.

However, once the court finds that the plaintiff sufficiently pled plus factors and that a conspiracy is "plausible," the inquiry must stop.  The court can consider the facts provided by the defendant as an alternative explanation for the behavior, but the plaintiff need not prove that their theory is more plausible than the defendant's theory to sufficiently plead its case.  As the Second Circuit explained, "on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is not the province of the court to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the court's choice among plausible alternatives."  Thus, the existence of facts that make the defendant's theories equally plausible will not doom the plaintiff's complaint.  Rather – assuming the plaintiff later adduces sufficient evidence to support the factual allegations in its complaint – "the choice between or among plausible interpretations of the evidence" will be left to the factfinder.


Anderson provides a few insights into the Twombly pleading standard, as interpreted by the Second Circuit.  First, when compared to Elevator, the Anderson case provides guidance on what constitutes adequate pleading of plus factors.  The Anderson plaintiff provided dates, times, and locations of alleged meetings among the defendant-competitors.  These alleged meetings were not trade association meetings but were after-hours or weekend meetings, some of which were supposedly in the offices of a competitor.  Moreover, the plaintiff provided circumstantial evidence showing that the defendants were talking about their planned response to a price increase.  In other words, these allegations provided the "factual context suggesting [that the parties reached an] agreement" required by Twombly as opposed to facts "merely consistent" with an agreement, as in Elevator, where the plaintiffs alleged meetings and agreements, but no specifics about the meetings or communications or agreements among the defendants.

Second, Anderson highlights that, in the Second Circuit, the success of the pleading largely is in the hands of the plaintiff.  The plaintiff has the obligation to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate "plausible grounds" of a conspiracy.  Pleading parallel conduct and plausible plus factors meets that requirement.  The defendants can provide facts to demonstrate the plaintiff's interpretation is implausible.  But if the plaintiff's interpretation still is plausible, then the pleading requirement has been met.  No matter how much explanation the defendant provides in its response or motion to dismiss, the court must refrain from weighing the parties' competing, unproven assertions and only assess whether the plaintiff's allegations are plausible.  "Plausible" is not "most likely."

However, a district court may have difficult drawing the line between whether the plaintiff's allegations of conduct plausibly show collusion and whether plaintiffs' allegations are more or less plausible than defendants' justification for the conduct at issue.  Weekend meetings not in the ordinary course of business may be easy to assign to the collusion side of that line.  But with more ambiguous potential plus factors, precluding any justification from defendants at the motion to dismiss stage could essentially eviscerate the role of plus factors in distinguishing mere parallel conduct from potentially unlawful conduct.

One type of plus factor that courts have considered is "signaling," conduct by defendants that indirectly "signals" their intended price changes to one another, such as through press releases or conferences with industry analysts.  Under Anderson, defendants could try to explain the innocent nature of communications alleged to be signaling, but would succeed only if the court found that the defendants' facts made the plaintiff's allegations implausible.

The takeaway is that courts still struggle with the meaning of "plausibility" and this central conundrum of antitrust law: how to distinguish lawful competitive behavior from unlawful collusion even though the two can look extremely similar.  The Second Circuit's Anderson decision has made the plaintiff's task easier.

(The Supreme Court case is Curtis Circulation Co. v. Anderson News, LLC (No. 12-446).)  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Paula W. Render
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions