Under Twombly and Iqbal, a court disregards legal conclusions couched as factual allegations and asks whether the remaining well-pleaded facts allow a reasonable inference of liability. Plausibility requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully.
The analysis proceeds in two steps: identify and set aside conclusory allegations, then assess whether the remaining factual content states a plausible claim.
Alternative Names:
Twombly-Iqbal Standard, Iqbal Standard
Why it Matters?
Plausibility raised the pleading bar meaningfully in federal court and is the foundation of most Rule 12(b)(6) motions. It is especially useful against conspiracy, fraud, and vicarious liability theories pleaded on formulaic recitals rather than facts. It also affects removal strategy, since a complaint that survives in state court under notice pleading may not survive in federal court.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between plausible and possible?
Do state courts apply the plausibility standard?
