Also known as:plausibility standards · Twombly standard · Iqbal standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A pleading requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 that a complaint contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The standard demands factual content permitting the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged rather than merely consistent with liability.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Antitrust Complaint Dismissed
Prism Analytics sued Prime Logistics and Prosperity Investments alleging the two carriers fixed fuel surcharges by adopting identical pricing charts on the same day. The complaint recited only the parallel announcements and public trade newsletters without any facts about meetings or communications between the carriers. The court granted the motion to dismiss because the pleaded facts remained equally consistent with independent responses to market signals and did not nudge the conspiracy claim from possible to plausible.
Civil Rights Claim Fails Plausibility
Pierre Poulin sued federal officials alleging they created a discriminatory detention policy. The complaint asserted that the officials knew of and condoned subordinate misconduct but supplied no facts showing personal involvement beyond their high rank. The court dismissed the claims because the allegations did not permit a reasonable inference of the officials' liability once conclusory statements were set aside.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662 (2009)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
Does the plausibility standard replace the former no-set-of-facts test?+
Yes. The standard requires factual matter that makes a claim plausible on its face rather than merely possible or consistent with liability. Courts disregard conclusory allegations and ask whether the remaining well-pleaded facts permit a reasonable inference of liability.
Supporting sources
How does the standard apply to parallel conduct in antitrust cases?+
Parallel conduct alone does not state a plausible conspiracy claim because it is equally consistent with lawful independent action. A complaint must allege additional factual matter that tends to exclude the possibility of independent behavior.
Supporting sources
Must plaintiffs plead a prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss?+
No. The plausibility standard does not require allegations that would establish every element of a prima facie case. It requires only enough factual content to support a reasonable inference of liability.
Supporting sources
Does the standard apply to affirmative defenses?+
Some courts apply the same plausibility requirement to defenses, treating the context of an answer as relevant to the degree of factual detail required.
Supporting sources
What happens when allegations are consistent with both lawful and unlawful conduct?+
The complaint fails the plausibility standard because it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility. Additional nonconclusory facts are needed to make liability the more reasonable inference.
Supporting sources
550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)Civil Procedure
…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…