Also known as:facial plausibility · plausibility on its face · Twombly plausibility · Iqbal standard
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 contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. The standard demands more than labels, conclusions, or allegations merely consistent with liability. It asks whether the pleaded facts permit the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Parallel Pricing Without Agreement Facts
Titan Transport and Continental Haulage simultaneously published identical fuel surcharge charts in industry newsletters. Metro Freight sued both carriers for price fixing but alleged no meetings, communications, or other circumstances indicating an actual agreement. The court accepts the parallel conduct as true yet finds it equally consistent with lawful independent responses to market signals. Because the allegations support only the possibility of conspiracy, the complaint fails the plausibility standard and is dismissed.
Conclusory Conspiracy Labels
GenPharm alleged that three brand-name pharmaceutical companies filed serial patent suits and citizen complaints to block generic entry. The complaint asserted that the companies acted in concert but supplied no facts about meetings, shared strategies, or coordinated instructions. The court disregards the bare legal conclusion of agreement. The remaining allegations of overlapping filings remain consistent with independent conduct, so the claim is not plausible on its face and the motion to dismiss is granted.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Hornbooks
Study Supplements
Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662 (2009)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What must a plaintiff plead to satisfy the plausibility standard?+
A plaintiff must allege enough factual matter, accepted as true, to permit the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable. Bare labels, conclusions, and allegations merely consistent with liability are disregarded. The facts must nudge the claim from possible to plausible.
Supporting sources
Does parallel conduct alone state a plausible antitrust conspiracy claim?+
No. Parallel pricing or filings that are equally consistent with lawful independent action do not cross the plausibility line. Additional nonconclusory facts suggesting an actual agreement are required.
Supporting sources
How does the court treat conclusory assertions such as acted in concert?+
The court disregards them as legal conclusions not entitled to the assumption of truth. Only well-pleaded factual allegations are considered when evaluating whether the claim is plausible.
Supporting sources
What is the consequence if a complaint pleads only possibility rather than plausibility?+
The complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Courts typically grant leave to amend when the defect can be cured by additional factual allegations.
Supporting sources
550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)Civil Procedure
…in contrast, we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the…