Thoughts on Twombly?
Whenever I think about a rule, I try to think about the case as well.
The problem with Twombly is that the plaintiff asserted parallel conduct between a bunch of companies. Yeah, that
could be an Antitrust violation, but is it plausible that it's one? Or that regular competition just meant that a bunch of companies acted in concert?
Now, if you could get beyond pleading, they would go through discovery, with the burdensome automatic disclosure pursuant to 26(a) on the companies. In an age of extremely expensive discovery, Souter is all like, "Girl, don't do there. Cuz otherwise the plaintiffs would be able to file all sorts of wacky lawsuits, subject to Rule 11." Hence the plausibility standard.
I often contrast Twombly with Conley, which had a liberal notice pleading standard because it took place during the Civil Rights era, and SCOTUS was concerned about plaintiffs getting thrown out of court when they could have had a valid claim. "Unless no set on facts which would entitle pleader to recovery."