In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), plaintiffs sued major telecommunication companies for conspiring to inflate prices for local telephone and internet services. 550 U.S. at 550. In support of this claim, the plaintiffs alleged that the companies engaged in "parallel conduct" that sought to discourage competition by: (1) establishing similar policies putting upstart telecommunication companies competing in their established service areas at a qualitative service disadvantage; (2) through refusals to compete against other major telecommunication companies in their established service areas. Id. at 550-51. The United States Supreme Court issued its opinions narrowing the federal pleading standard chiefly in response to two growing phenomena: (1) increasingly high anticipated costs of continued, general litigation; (2) grossly overburdened federal courts. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557-59. The Court stated: "This 'no set of facts' language can be read in isolation as saying that any statement revealing the theory of the claim will suffice unless its factual impossibility may be shown from the face of the pleadings." Twombly, U.S. at , 127 S. Ct. at 1968. It reasoned that, "on such a focused and literal reading of Conley's 'no set of facts,' (Conley v. Gibson) a wholly conclusory statement of claim would survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings left open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some 'set of undisclosed facts' to support recovery." Id. The Court rejected that reading, stating: "The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Id. at , 127 S. Ct. at 1969. "Conley, then, described the breadth of opportunity to prove what an adequate complaint claims, not the minimum standard of adequate pleading to govern a complaint's survival." Id. "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65. Instead, the complaint's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at , 127 S. Ct. at 1965.