markets here in new york and the exclusion of the new york from the attraction pass was the way in which the two competitors in the market preserve market share multiple attractions tourist attractions in new york city nothing to do business with going in york or new york was increasing its market share and would have provided increased business for all of the attractions and indeed all new york had an even certain attractions such as the one world trade center in which the attractions had exclusive arrangements with one of the defendants in the case of the one world trade center in this exclusive with great one and yet  the one world trade center and gray line allowed big bust to include that attraction it it's multi multipath scientists who are staple there had to be coordination and cooperation between the refused to do business with growing new york and we're told that if we if we did otherwise we would make our other trade partners and happen rather trade partners might refuse to do business with us we were told that we not do business with going to york and boss and it's impossible goodwill it's impossible to believe pattern that involves some coordination between like a big boss finally the two defendants disparaged going to york repeatedly using the same disparaging remarks to the complaint of course about what you don't know in this market where you have all the major tourist attractions in your art many of them refusing to do business with going to your it's impossible i think it's highly implausible required but neither is present in the nd minute complaint both are required because at the plaintiff concedes there's no direct evidence of conspiracy but the basic theory plaintiff's case here is it's more or less three fold st there was a small handful of attractions that by balking at dawn discounted tickets to the point that are in fact boycotting the plant requiring consciously parallel conduct i'm not aware of anywhere in the cleanings where point that has identified and certainly not today what the consciously parallel conduct that plan b requires could possibly be in the anti trust just an action but also subtractions st there's nothing identical there these are separately negotiated contracts and the pleadings are missing any detail about what those contracts could possibly be nd there's no time period associated there's very few dates in the specific practice allegations in the in the nd amend complaint and what they think there are are across multiple years competitor while of course of course they have a common knowledge to compete that's that competition the simple logic of this was rejected repeatedly in tuam plumlee says quote resistance to the up starts using the exact same words that point to cases here is quote the natural unilateral reaction of each defendant in slightly greater detail twaddle explains quote if alleging parallel decisions to resist competition were enough to imply an antitrust conspiracy including the sherman act section one violation against almost any group of competing businesses would be a short  closely explained the simple logic of a coming in order to conspire requires much more than just the existence of competition as to actions against self interest this plus factor requires that actions are against the self interest quote of the alleged conspirators that's from this court's decision in two thousand and thirteen in baltimore d c the group i said has explained over and over that it's the tourist attraction not the defendants that were acting against their own self interests whether an attraction did something against its own self interest to nothing about whether the defendants have colluded in some way and any event those pleadings are implausible and conclusory d as the district court ruled on two separate occasions this gets to the boycott line of reasoning it's not even clear what the relevance of the boycott line of reasoning is because it's not about the defendant's self interest but punished us on a handful of occasions refers to something called a virtual boycott this is of course just a handful of hundreds perhaps thousands of attractions in new york city i think makes clear why those attractions wouldn't want to do business with plaintiff was trying to buy discounted tickets as it explained a number of times nothing to do with the commission that counsel mentioned but over and over pla explained they were still seeking discounted tickets and these are world famous tourist attractions it makes perfect sense that these attractions would hesitate to give discounted tickets to a self proclaimed upstart at best place that has pled simple distribution contracts between a supplier meaning the attractions in this case and a distributor decades of supreme court antitrust president dating back to continental t v in one thousand and seventy seven explain that these are normal and good for competition now is the hook that ties this together that ties together on the one hand the admission ticket and on the other hand bus tours is what place is called the central part of the doctrine the trick ok's term the supreme court in two thousand and four cast doubt on whether the essential service doctrine is good that they market and sell their tickets online at their offices that visitors centers and hotel second essential facilities doctrinal acquires a monopolist but there is no monopolist here at the district court explained there's two separate groups of defendants finally a severe handicap plaintiff has pled repeatedly that there is no severe what kind of allegations that the plaintiffs need to can include if they don't have could they conclude if they don't have direct evidence of the conspiracy it sounded like you were saying that they sort of need to have a   it requires both pro conduct and also plus factors to be able to infer a conspiracy so as counsel mentioned earlier this afternoon for example they are  they are coming out in about in the marketplace seeing what else takes place the nd amended complaint like the prior complaints before it just simply has none of the detail that that would require  to be able to infer just the simple logic a plan to skate makes it clear why there could not have been collusion like this explains a number of times that  to defend the groups are both kind of the big guys both global players operating all over the world is that we're assuming that's true and we have no reason to  doubt that but assuming that's true and there's no reason for the plaintiffs to collude with each other to convince a tourist attraction to cannot do but so at the very most we have a situation where there is a vertical arrangement between one of the defendants and being and the tourist attraction because there's simply no way of making the inferential l york that its trade partners had voting for that but they could not work with tony i think that alone provides a nice powerful circumstantial evidence that there's something going on here there's a restraint of trade that involves collaboration between the two big players in the market