Full opinion text
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: This antitrust case requires us to apply the standards announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), to determine whether the allegations of the five complaints before us are sufficient to "nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974, so as to state a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff-Appellant automobile repair shops (the "Body Shops") claim that the Defendant-Appellee Insurance Companies colluded to lower repair prices by improperly pressuring the shops to lower prices and by threatening to boycott those who do not comply. The Body Shops claim a per se price-fixing conspiracy and a per se conspiracy to boycott. They also bring several state law claims. I. BACKGROUND The cost of repairing a damaged vehicle is primarily based on labor and material costs. Repair shops can consult estimating guides to assist in calculating their labor rates but there is no standard way of determining a shop's labor rate. Within the category of labor costs, variables such as overhead, shop size and capacity, repair volume, and expertise affect each shop's rate. Market considerations, such as the prevailing labor rates within the geographic area of the shop, can dominate that cost. Material costs are driven by the cost of repairing or replacing damaged parts. Parts can be sourced from the original manufacturer, an aftermarket company, a salvage yard, or a parts refurbisher. Alfred M. Thomas & Michael Jund, Collision Repair and Refinishing: A Foundation Course for Technicians 7 (2014). The Body Shops are a group of professional automobile repair companies that provide collision repair services to individuals insured by the Insurance Companies. Accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff-as required by the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) posture of this case-the Body Shops derive seventy to ninety-five percent of their revenue from customers who pay via insurance and the Insurance Companies account for sixty-five to eighty-five percent of the insurance market in each of the relevant states. The Body Shops broadly allege that the Insurance Companies-with Defendant-Appellee State Farm as their leader-have combined or conspired to depress the amounts they pay for auto repairs performed on behalf of their insureds. According to the Body Shops, the Insurance Companies accomplish this in a number of ways. First, the Body Shops allege that each of the Insurance Companies use a formal agreement system called "direct repair programs" or "DRPs." In exchange for entering into a DRP, the several Insurance Companies each agrees to list a shop as a "preferred provider" for its insureds which, at least in theory, generates increased business for the shop. In return, the shop agrees to certain concessions regarding, among other things, the "market rate" at which they are entitled to be reimbursed for labor costs. State Farm sets its market rate using an electronic survey of the shops in a particular geographic area and advises the Body Shops that they will pay no more than the market rate. In addition, the other Insurance Companies advise the Body Shops that they will pay no more than State Farm. The Body Shops allege, primarily, that the survey is methodologically unsound, that State Farm manipulates the survey to achieve an artificial rate, that State Farm will contact a shop and demand that they lower their rates, that State Farm will threaten-and effectuate-removal from the "preferred providers" list if a shop attempts to raise its rate, and that State Farm attempts to prohibit discussions among repair shops about their rates on the theory that such discussions constitute illegal price-fixing. The Body Shops allege that the market rate is enforced even against those shops which are not signatories to a DRP. Additionally, the Body Shops allege that the Insurance Companies have combined or conspired to depress the amounts they pay for replacement parts on damaged vehicles. According to the Body Shops, the Insurance Companies refuse to pay for "original equipment manufacturer" parts, which-because they are designed by the car manufacturer to fit the precise make and model of the damaged car-are more expensive. Rather, the Body Shops are required to use either "aftermarket" parts designed by third-parties or "salvaged" parts from other wrecked vehicles. These parts require extra time to install-which the Insurance Companies do not pay for-and cannot be guaranteed as safe by the Body Shops. The Insurance Companies also allegedly: utilize industry-standard databases -which identify "target" costs for certain repairs-only when financially advantageous to them; often refuse to pay for necessary repairs; routinely refuse to reimburse the cost of certain materials; mandate participation in their parts procurement process; and force discount programs on the Body Shops. The Body Shops argue that these actions constitute a per se price-fixing violation of the Sherman Act. Lastly, the Body Shops allege that the Insurance Companies engage in a practice known as "steering," in which they discourage their insureds from patronizing a noncompliant repair shop through "misrepresentation, insinuation, and casting aspersions." These practices allegedly include telling insureds that a particular repair shop: is not on the preferred provider list; has had quality control issues; charges more than other shops in the area (and that they will not pay the excess amount); takes longer than other shops (and that they will not pay for additional car rental days); and does not perform work that can be guaranteed by the Insurance Companies, even though the Insurance Companies never guarantee any repair work. The Body Shops argue that the Insurance Companies conspire with respect to such steering, constituting a per se group boycott. The Body Shops filed approximately twenty-two similar lawsuits in federal district courts throughout the country. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the actions to the Middle District of Florida (Judge Presnell) where the "lead case," A&E Auto Body, Inc. v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Co., No. 6:14-cv-310, was already pending. Of the twenty-two actions: two-the lead case and one other-were dismissed with prejudice and not appealed; four were dismissed and are currently on appeal; and two were dismissed by the district court and then also had their appeals dismissed for lack of prosecution. Of the remaining fourteen, five are the subject of this appeal. As relevant to this appeal, the Body Shops alleged two violations of federal law under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, for price-fixing and group boycotting. They also alleged three causes of action under the laws of the state in which the suits were filed for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and tortious interference (collectively, the "State Law Claims"). The Insurance Companies moved to dismiss all fourteen cases, the Body Shops filed a consolidated response to which the Insurance Companies replied, and the district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. Pursuant to that referral, the magistrate judge entered a fifty-nine page Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), which concluded that the relevant claims should be dismissed without prejudice. The Body Shops then filed an Omnibus Objection to the R&R (the "Objection"), wherein they challenged the magistrate judge's conclusions with respect to some of their claims. The district court overruled the Body Shops' objections to the R&R, adopted the R&R, and dismissed all of the relevant claims without prejudice (the "Dismissal Order"). Rather than file amended complaints, the Body Shops appealed the district court's decision with respect to five of the initial actions-two that were filed in New Jersey and one each from Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia. Those five actions were consolidated on appeal. A divided panel of this Court reversed the district court's decision, holding that the Body Shops had alleged sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss on all of the claims. That decision was vacated when this Court voted to hear the case en banc. II. ISSUES ON APPEAL The parties were instructed to brief the en banc court on the following issues: 1) Can a per se illegal price-fixing agreement or conspiracy between and among the several defendant-Insurance Companies plausibly be inferred from the allegations of the complaints in the several cases before this Court. 2) Can a per se illegal agreement or conspiracy between and among the several defendant-Insurance Companies to boycott the plaintiffs' Body Shops plausibly be inferred from the allegations of the complaints in the several cases before this Court. The parties also briefed the state law issues involving the three state law claims-unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and tortious interference. We address first the federal antitrust claims, including the alleged price-fixing conspiracy and the alleged group boycott, and then the state law claims. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim de novo. Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010). While we accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the allegations must state a claim for relief that is plausible, not merely possible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974 ; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Under this standard, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. IV. FEDERAL ANTITRUST CLAIMS A. The Legal Landscape Section One of the Sherman Act, under which both the price-fixing and boycotting claims are brought, provides that "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C. § 1. In addition to that bare bones recital of prohibited behavior, the Supreme Court has long concluded that Congress intended only to prohibit "unreasonable" restraints on trade. See, e.g., Arizona v. Maricopa Cty. Med. Soc., 457 U.S. 332, 343, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 2472-73, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982). Thus, § 1 prohibits (1) conspiracies that (2) unreasonably (3) restrain interstate or foreign trade. Spanish Broad. Sys. of Fla., Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 376 F.3d 1065, 1071 (11th Cir. 2004). Only the first element is at issue on this appeal. Therefore, because the Body Shops are required to allege facts plausibly suggesting a conspiracy, "the crucial question is whether the challenged anticompetitive conduct stems from independent decision or from an agreement, tacit or express." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554, 127 S.Ct. at 1964. As in this case, the Supreme Court in Twombly was confronted with "the antecedent question of what a plaintiff must plead in order to state a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act." Id. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. at 1964. In applying the general standards applicable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 to a § 1 claim, the Supreme Court held that "stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made." Id. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. The Court recognized that "[a]sking for plausible grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement." Id. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. The Court held: While a showing of parallel "business behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder may infer agreement," it falls short of "conclusively establishing agreement or ... itself constituting a Sherman Act offense." Theatre Enterprises[, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537] at 540-541, 74 S. Ct. 257 [ (1954) ]. Even "conscious parallelism," a common reaction of "firms in a concentrated market that recognize their shared economic interests and their interdependence with respect to price and output decisions" is "not in itself unlawful." Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993) ; see 6 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1433a, p. 236 (2d ed. 2003) (hereinafter Areeda & Hovenkamp) ("The courts are nearly unanimous in saying that mere interdependent parallelism does not establish the contract, combination, or conspiracy required by Sherman Act § 1") ... The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the ambiguity of the behavior: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market. ... [P]roof of a § 1 conspiracy must include evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent action .... [C]onspiracy evidence must tend to rule out the possibility that the defendants were acting independently. Id. at 553-54, 127 S. Ct. at 1964 (alterations in original removed). Even before Twombly, "it [was] well settled in this circuit that evidence of conscious parallelism alone does not permit an inference of conspiracy unless the plaintiff either establishes that, assuming there is no conspiracy, each defendant engaging in the parallel action acted contrary to its economic self-interest, or offers other 'plus factors' tending to establish that the defendants were ... in a collusive agreement to fix prices or otherwise restrain trade." City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 571 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations, changes, and footnotes omitted). As this Court has noted, these plus factors "remove [a plaintiff's] evidence from the realm of equipoise and render that evidence more probative of conspiracy than of conscious parallelism." Williamson Oil Co. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1301 (11th Cir. 2003). Conclusory allegations of agreement or conspiracy are insufficient. As the Court held in Twombly: [A]n allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice. Without more, parallel conduct does not suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality. Hence, when allegations of parallel conduct are set out in order to make a § 1 claim, they must be placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action. 550 U.S. at 556-57, 127 S.Ct. at 1966. The plaintiff has the obligation to provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65. We address first the Body Shops' claim of horizontal price-fixing conspiracy, and then turn to their claim of horizontal boycotting conspiracy. As noted above, both claims require that the Plaintiffs allege facts supporting an agreement or conspiracy among the Insurance Companies. B. Horizontal Price-Fixing Conspiracy At the outset, we address an issue regarding the complaints. The first is merely an observation of the time-worn principle that it is only the factual allegations contained therein which we must accept as true. The Body Shops' appellate briefing takes undue liberties in construing the inferences that can be fairly read from their pleadings. The district court dismissed these claims without prejudice and, therefore, the Body Shops had an opportunity to amend their complaints to include any additional allegations that may have been omitted from their initial pleadings. Having chosen not to do so, they are not permitted to simply "insert" new allegations through their appellate briefing. These gaps-between the allegations of the complaints and the allegations of the appellate briefing-are discussed, where relevant, below. The Body Shops identify several purported plus factors that they contend-in conjunction with their allegations of parallel conduct-warrant an inference of a per se horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. We discuss each of their purported plus factors in turn. 1. Uniformity of Price The Body Shops argue in their brief that the Insurance Companies' conduct does "not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence unaided by an advance understanding among the parties" because they have "adopt[ed] a uniform price despite variables that would ordinarily result in divergent prices." This asserted plus factor consists of two components. First, the defendants must have adopted a uniform price. This component, however, is suggestive only of parallel conduct and, without more, will not justify invoking the plus factor. Accordingly, the uniform price must exist "despite variables that would ordinarily result in divergent pricing." The second component is an indicator of the agreement that makes collusion more plausible than conscious parallelism, thus moving the needle off of equipoise. The sources on which the Body Shops rely make clear the necessity of both components. In Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 713, 68 S.Ct. 793, 809, 92 L.Ed. 1010 (1948), the Supreme Court inferred an agreement where "for many years, with rare exceptions, cement has been offered for sale in every given locality at identical prices and terms by all producers." But the record evidence in that case established that "[t]housands of secret sealed bids ha[d] been received by public agencies which corresponded in prices of cement down to a fractional part of a penny." 333 U.S. at 713, 68 S.Ct. at 809. Likewise, the Body Shops quote a leading antitrust treatise for the idea that an agreement may be present if rivals establish identical prices, but they fail to grapple with the caveat that this is only true where there are "simultaneous identical bids on a made-to-order product not readily assembled from standard and conventionally priced items." Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1434b (3d ed. 2012). Thus, while this so-called convergent pricing certainly is-or at least could be-a plus factor, it should only be invoked where we should otherwise expect divergent pricing. Considered in the appropriate light, the differences between the instant case and the case on which the Body Shops rely are substantial. First, the focus in Cement Institute on "secret," "sealed," and "simultaneous" bids is crucial precisely because that is what takes the situation beyond that of mere conscious parallelism: competitors cannot consciously parallel one another if they only learn of the other's price after they have established their own. Perhaps sensing this, the Body Shops' brief argues that all of the Insurance Companies employ the same, identical "market rate" which State Farm does not make public. As an initial matter, alleging that State Farm does not publicly disclose the market rate and arguing that it is a secret are two very different things. The fact that State Farm does not issue a press release with the market rate does not foreclose the possibility that it is publicly known. This is a crucial distinction. There are no factual allegations that the market rate is a secret. Indeed, nowhere in the complaints do the Body Shops suggest that the labor rate is a secret. Quite the opposite, the complaints reveal that State Farm must necessarily tell the rate to every repair shop in a given geographic area. Even if it were possible to share the market rate with the Body Shops while, at the same time, keeping it a secret from the other Insurance Companies, there are no allegations at all that the other Insurance Companies knew what it was in advance. Indeed, rather than allege that all of the Insurance Companies simultaneously approached the Body Shops with an identical market rate (which might possibly indicate that they had communicated in advance), the complaints allege that the other Insurance Companies simply conform to State Farm's rate-whatever that may be. Compl. ¶ 62 ("Defendants ... specifically advised the Plaintiff they will pay no more than State Farm pays for labor."); Compl. ¶ 115 ("[D]efendants [state] that they will conform to State Farm's payment structure."). Following the example set by a competitor, without agreeing to do so in advance, is textbook "price leadership"-a practice we have repeatedly stated is insufficient to establish the existence of an agreement. See, e.g., Williamson Oil, 346 F.3d at 1301-03 ("It is well settled in this circuit that evidence of conscious parallelism alone does not permit an inference of conspiracy unless the plaintiff either establishes that ... each defendant engaging in the parallel action acted contrary to its economic self-interest, or offers other 'plus factors' tending to establish that the defendants were not engaging merely in oligopolistic price maintenance or price leadership but rather in a collusive agreement to fix prices") (internal punctuation and citations omitted); City of Tuscaloosa, 158 F.3d at 571 ("[C]onsciously parallel behavior by oligopolists does not in itself support an inference of agreement, of 'a meeting of the minds,' any more strongly than it supports an inference of legal price maintenance or leadership."). Price leadership is comprehensively described in the leading antitrust treatise: The first firm in a five-firm oligopoly, Alpha, may be eager to lower its price somewhat in order to expand its sales. However, it knows that the other four firms would probably respond to a price cut by reducing their prices to maintain their previous market shares. Unless Alpha believes that it can conceal its price reduction for a time or otherwise gain a substantial advantage from being the first to move, the price reduction would merely reduce Alpha's profits and the profits of the other firms as well. Such "oligopolistic rationality" cannot only forestall rivalrous price reductions, it can also provide for price increases through, for example, price leadership. If the price had for some reason been less than X [the price a monopolist would charge to maximize profits], firm Beta might announce its decision to raise its price to X effective immediately, or in several days, or next season. The other four firms may each choose to follow Beta's lead; if they do not increase their prices to Beta's level, Beta may be forced to reduce its price to their level. Because each of the other firms knows this, each will consider whether it is better off when all are charging the old price or price X. They will obviously choose X when they believe that it will maximize industry profits. Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1429b (4th ed. 2017). With respect to interdependent parallelism like price leadership, the treatise notes: "The courts are nearly unanimous in saying that mere interdependent parallelism does not establish contract, combination, or conspiracy required by Sherman Act § 1." Id. ¶ 1433a. This follows from the Supreme Court's holding in Twombly: "Even 'conscious parallelism,' a common reaction of firms in a concentrated market that recognize their shared economic interests and their interdependence with respect to price and output decisions is not in itself unlawful." 550 U.S. at 553-54, 127 S.Ct. at 1964 (internal quotations and punctuation omitted). Further distinguishing our case is the fact that auto body repairs are not the type of "made-to-order product not readily assembled from standard and conventionally priced items" where we expect to see divergent pricing. On the contrary, the "products" here-cars-are so readily assembled from standard parts that their assembly-line manufacturing set the standard for other industries. That the Body Shops are repairing those cars, rather than assembling them for the first time, does not make the parts used to do so any less standard. And they are so conventionally priced that, as discussed below, the Body Shops believe that the Insurance Companies should not be allowed to deviate from third-party databases that set standardized prices. Indeed, these industry databases not only indicate standardized pricing for parts, but they also estimate repair time (labor) for particular types of repairs which are ordinary and customary repairs. Thus, while convergent pricing where it should otherwise not be expected can undoubtedly serve as a plus factor, none of the indicators to which courts and commentators have traditionally looked to support such a factor-or at least none to which the Body Shops have pointed and none that we can perceive-are present here. The Body Shops have not pointed to any plausible reason that one should expect that prices in this market-involving standardized automobile parts and repairs-would be divergent. Quite the contrary, the Body Shops argue that the Insurance Companies should comply with several databases that exist for the sole purpose of establishing standardized pricing. That is, the fact that the Body Shops insist that the Insurance Companies should comply with the prices published in these three separate databases demonstrates that such prices are standardized, and that one should expect convergent prices-not divergent prices. In short, the instant case bears none of the traditional hallmarks of a situation in which uniform pricing is present in an industry where we would otherwise not expect it. Nor are any of the other reasons offered by the Body Shops suggestive of an environment in which we would expect to see divergent pricing. And without an expectation of divergent pricing, all that remains is an allegation of uniform pricing, which is indicative only of parallel conduct. Although the complaints repeatedly allege that the insurance companies have agreed and conspired with respect to price, these allegations have no basis in the facts actually alleged. They are merely conclusions and therefore are an insufficient basis on which to infer a prior agreement. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. at 1966 ("[A] conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply the facts adequate to show illegality."). In this case, the Body Shops' own allegations put a nail in their coffin. Their own allegations explain why there is uniformity in price-the other Insurance Companies simply tell body shops that they will pay no more than State Farm. This is a rational and legitimate business strategy and one which involves clearly legal price leadership. Accordingly, we reject this plus factor as an indicator of the necessary agreement. 2. Uniformity of Tactics As its second plus factor, the Body Shops argue that the Insurance Companies have engaged in uniform practices suggestive of an agreement. Several courts have found a plus factor where there is a similarity of language, terms, or conditions used by the alleged co-conspirators that would be improbable absent collusion. See, e.g., De Jong Packing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 618 F.2d 1329, 1332-34 (9th Cir. 1980). Although the Body Shops' briefing describes the Insurance Companies' tactics as "the same," "identical," and part of a "script[ ]," the Body Shops' briefing is betrayed by their complaints, which introduce the relevant tactics as follows: Through various methods, the [Insurance Companies] have, independently and in concert, instituted numerous methods of coercing the [Body Shops] into accepting less than actual and/or market costs for materials and supplies expended in completing repairs. Compl. ¶ 63. There is nothing in those allegations to suggest that the Insurance Companies' tactics are uniform or that they use a script. None of the actual allegations of the complaints suggest that language used by the several Insurance Companies was the "same" or "identical" or like a "script." Indeed in none of the five complaints do the words "same," "identical" or "script" appear in reference to the tactics used. Nor is there any other actual allegation that suggests some uniform practice that is somehow idiosyncratic and not to be expected as within the "wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554, 127 S.Ct. at 1964. Not only is there no allegation of identical or similar language, the language actually used in the complaints suggests just the opposite. As noted, ¶ 63 alleges "[t]hrough various means" and ¶ 64 alleges "[s]ome of these methods"-i.e., phrases that do not suggest that all or a substantial group of the Insurance Companies engage in all or most of the methods in strikingly similar ways. The Body Shops argue that the Insurance Companies have engaged in uniform tactics in that they require the Body Shops: to repair faulty parts rather than install replacement parts; to install used or recycled parts; and to offer discounts and concessions. Even if there were considerable uniformity with respect to the Insurance Companies' use of such methods, that would be suggestive of an agreement only if such usage would not plausibly arise from "independent responses to common stimuli." See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n.4, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 n.4 (quoting Areeda and Hovenkamp ¶ 1425). All of these purported "highly uniform" tactics are easily explained by the most common of corporate stimuli: a desire to increase profits. And while some methods of increasing profits could be so idiosyncratic as to be unlikely to arise in the absence of an agreement, this is plainly not the case here. None of these tactics could even be fairly described as novel, let alone idiosyncratic, so as to support an inference of an agreement. It can hardly be denied that repairing (rather than replacing) damaged parts, installing recycled (rather than new) parts, and requiring discounts are among the most common and time-worn methods of increasing corporate profits in any industry, let alone in an industry where parts and labor reimbursements are the primary business expenditures, and where the parts are standardized and most repairs are "ordinary and customary" with industry wide databases that provide standardized estimates. In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., 798 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2015) ("But plaintiffs' plus factors are no more consistent with an illegal agreement than with rational and competitive business strategies, independently adopted by firms acting within an interdependent market."). Thus, even if we assume considerable uniformity among the Insurance Companies with respect to requiring where possible the repair of parts (rather than using new), requiring the use of recycled parts (rather than new), and requiring discounts, there would be no basis for inferring a prior agreement because each insurance company would rationally and independently want to do precisely that. That is, independent action is at least as plausible as concerted action pursuant to prior agreement; thus nothing "tends to exclude the possibility of independent action," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 553-54, 127 S.Ct. at 1964, or "remove[s] ... [this case] from the realm of equipoise and render[s] [this case] more probative of conspiracy than of conscious parallelism," Williamson Oil, 346 F.3d at 1301. Indeed, this is especially true in this case where the complaints repeatedly allege that the several companies say they will "conform to State Farm's payment structure." Compl. ¶ 115. A complaint merely alleging several common and obvious industry practices should not proceed directly past a motion to dismiss and into the expensive and settlement-inducing quagmire of antitrust discovery. The Supreme Court has described precisely this problem: [E]ven if [defendants committed all the acts] in all the ways the plaintiffs allege, there is no reason to infer that the companies had agreed among themselves to do what was only natural anyway; so natural, in fact, that if alleging parallel decisions to resist competition were enough to imply an antitrust conspiracy, pleading a § 1 violation against almost any group of competing businesses would be a sure thing. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 566, 127 S.Ct. at 1971 (citation omitted). The Body Shops' briefing suggests that the Insurance Companies' tactics are highly uniform when even the complaint does not allege that. Although the Body Shops do allege uniformity of actions, no facts are actually alleged in support of this conclusion. Therefore, the allegation is merely conclusory and insufficient. Id. at 557, 127 S.Ct. at 1966. The Body Shops do not explain which of the challenged activities occurred "in concert" and which occurred "independently." And no facts are actually alleged suggesting concerted action pursuant to a prior agreement. The Body Shops rely upon several alleged tactics which are clearly common, obvious, and mainstream. An inference of prior agreement does not arise from the mere fact that several Insurance Companies adopt policies favoring use of cheaper parts and offering discounts to Insurance Companies. The Body Shops' position is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, especially with Twombly, as well as Eleventh Circuit precedent. Long before Twombly clearly established what an antitrust plaintiff had to plead in order to warrant an inference of prior agreement or conspiracy for purposes of a viable claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act, both the D.C. Circuit in Proctor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 675 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and the Seventh Circuit in Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 660 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir. 1981), held in a summary judgment context that parallel conduct of insurance companies in dealing with automobile repair shops (parallel conduct the same or very similar to that alleged in the instant case) was in the self-interest of each insurance company and thus did not give rise to an inference of prior agreement or concerted action necessary to prove a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The D.C. Circuit held: There is some evidence of parallel behavior by appellees. Construing this evidence in the light most favorable to appellants, it suggests that upon occasion certain appellees used the same labor rate in writing estimates, that they had similar arrangements with repair shops that agreed to do volume work at the low rates used in their estimates, that they conducted surveys of repair shops to determine the average rate charged by shops in particular areas, and that they tended to resist price increases by repair shops. However, these alleged parallel practices, without more, cannot create an inference or a conspiracy among appellees where, as here, the practices are in the economic self-interest of each of the individual appellees. The practices are as consistent with independent as with concerted actions. Unless an insurance company is willing to pay whatever price is charged at any given repair shop, it stands to reason that it would conduct surveys to determine the rates charged by repair shops. It is equally understandable that a company would, in an effort to control costs, resist price increases and write estimates using the lowest rates acceptable to a sufficient number of quality garages. It also makes economic sense for an insurance company to make arrangements with certain repair shops that agree to do work at the rates used by the company in writing estimates in exchange for volume referrals by the company. 675 F.2d at 334 ; see also Workman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 520 F.Supp. 610, 621 (N.D. Cal. 1981) (holding, in the same context of insurance companies dealing with automobile repair shops, that parallel conduct very similar to that alleged in the instant case alone does not create an inference of impermissible conspiracy because "[s]uch conduct is in the economic self-interest of each individual insurance company"). All three of these cases so held on the basis of such parallel conduct alone, without the additional nail-in-the-coffin of our plaintiffs' case-i.e., the follow-the-leader practices in our case which conclusively explain why the Insurance Companies here engage in such parallel conduct. As discussed above, it is clearly established that such follow-the-leader practices are legal and do not, by themselves, give rise to an inference of prior agreement. In other words, our case is not only controlled by Twombly but our case is a fortiori from the three cited cases in this same context of an insurance company's dealings with automobile repair shops. For the foregoing reasons, both of the Body Shops' first two purported plus factors-identity of price and identity of tactics-are mere parallel conduct and do not support their attempt to allege the necessary agreement or conspiracy. 3. Contrary to Economic Interest The Body Shops' brief suggests that the Insurance Companies' adherence to State Farm's artificial "market rate" and other payment structures is in contradiction to the industry databases, and by implication is against their economic self-interest. Courts have recognized a company's actions that were against its self-interest can constitute a plus factor. See, e.g., In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, 385 F.3d 350, 360 (3d. Cir. 2004). Courts and commentators have further observed that this plus factor often restates interdependence in the context of alleged price-fixing. Id. at 361 ; see also Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra ¶ 1434c1. This argument exists only by implication because the Body Shops merely entitle the section of their brief "contrary to [ ]economic self-interest." However, they do not explain how the fact that the other Insurance Companies follow the lead of State Farm rather than adhering to the industry databases is against their own self-interest. Nothing in the complaints indicates to us that the actions of the Insurance Companies are against their economic interests. The pages in the complaint cited in the brief do not illuminate the argument either. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how choosing the least costly method of repair, thereby reducing the reimbursement, is contrary to an insurance company's economic self-interest. Thus, we reject this suggested plus factor. 4. Opportunity to Exchange Information The Body Shops also assert in their brief that they alleged that the Insurance Companies "have exchanged or have had the opportunity to exchange information relative to the conspiracy." Appellants' En Banc Br. at 27. However, the argument they make in their brief to support their assertion is: "identical labor rates, identical refusal to compensate for the same processes and procedures, identical false excuses for such refusal, uniform adherence to the refusal to alter labor rates until State Farm does is indicative of shared information and agreement overall and agreement on the language to be used in refusing payment for repair services (a 'script')." Id. In other words, they argue that because the Insurance Companies acted in identical ways, they must have been meeting and exchanging information. There are two problems with this argument. First, the complaints make no factual allegations that the Insurance Companies either exchanged information, employed identical tactics, followed a script, or declined to pay for the same repairs. Second, even if the actual allegations did indicate considerable uniformity of price and uniformity of tactics, there would be no inference that this was the result of exchange of information for the same reasons discussed above. That is, even if there were considerable uniformity in requiring, for example, repair of parts (not replacement), use of recycled parts (not new), and requiring discounts, such actions just as plausibly result from independent resort to common and rational business practices as from exchange of information. And, as noted above, this is especially true in light of repeated allegations in the complaints that the several Insurance Companies say they will "conform to State Farm's payment structure." Compl. ¶ 115. 5. Conclusion with respect to Horizontal Price-Fixing Conspiracy In sum, the Body Shops have alleged only parallel conduct, and have not alleged any facts supporting plus factors that would tip the scale from equipoise towards conspiracy sufficiently to prevent dismissal of this count. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this claim. C. Group Boycott A group boycott is included within the Sherman Act's prohibition of any unreasonable contract, combination, or conspiracy in the restraint of interstate trade or commerce. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 1013(b) ; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531, 541, 98 S.Ct. 2923, 2929, 57 L.Ed.2d 932 (1978). A boycott consists of "pressuring a party with whom one has a dispute by withholding, or enlisting others to withhold, patronage or services from the target." Barry, 438 U.S. at 541, 98 S.Ct. at 2930. The "ultimate target" of the agreement can be either a competitor or "a customer of some or all of the [boycotters] who is being denied access to desired goods or services because of a refusal to accede to particular terms set by some or all of the [boycotters]." Id. at 543, 98 S.Ct. at 2931. For boycotting to be per se illegal, it must involve "horizontal agreements among direct competitors." NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128, 135, 119 S.Ct. 493, 498, 142 L.Ed.2d 510 (1998). In other words, as with the price-fixing claim of the Body Shops, their conspiracy to boycott claim requires as a prerequisite sufficient allegations of an agreement or conspiracy. Again the crucial, antecedent question is whether the alleged actions of the Insurance Companies stem from independent actions or from prior agreement. The boycott allegations in this case are even weaker than the allegations of price-fixing. Neither the "steering" allegations nor the "boycott" section of the complaint allege even in conclusory fashion that there was an agreement to do so. And even if we incorporate the conclusory allegations of an agreement from the price-fixing sections of the complaint, the instant complaint would still fall short of even the "few stray statements [that] speak directly of agreement" which the Supreme Court has held are insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 564, 127 S.Ct. at 1970. The Body Shops have asserted in their appellate briefing facts that are simply unsupportable on this record. Indeed, although the Body Shops have argued on appeal that "[a]ll of the Defendants utilize the same script containing identical false and misleading steering statements," both the word "script" and the word "identical" are conspicuously absent from the complaints. Quite the contrary, in the only factual allegations with regard to steering insureds away from their shops, the Body Shops allege that: Examples of this practice include telling insureds and/or claimants that a particular chosen shop is not on the preferred provider list, that quality issues have arisen with that particular shop, that complaints have been received about that particular shop from other consumers, that the shop charges more than any other shop in the area and these additional costs will have to be paid by the consumer, that repairs at the disfavored shop will take much longer than at other, preferred shops and the consumer will be responsible for rental car fees beyond a certain date, and that the Defendant cannot guarantee the work of that shop as it can at other shops. Compl. ¶ 83. From this, it is argued in the Body Shops' brief that the Insurance Companies have engaged in "identical" tactics. There is nothing in these allegations that would suggest action in concert or "rule out the possibility that the defendants were acting independently." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 553-54, 127 S.Ct. at 1964. There is no allegation that all or most of the Insurance Companies used most or all of the foregoing excuses in urging insureds against patronizing a shop. There is no allegation that the several companies used the same language. There is no allegation suggesting any other uniformity that would be unexpected or idiosyncratic. Moreover, even if there were considerable uniformity with respect to those reasons that an insured should not use a particular shop, there could hardly be reasons more expected or more commonly used than those alleged by the Body Shops. That the shop is not on the preferred provider list, that there are quality issues, that it charges more, and/or that it takes longer are reasons that any company would be expected to use in an effort to persuade an insured not to use a particular shop. The alleged boycotting methods are not so idiosyncratic that they suggest conspiracy. To the contrary, they are methods that would logically be employed by any insurer to dissuade its insureds from using a disfavored shop. In other words, even a considerable uniformity with respect to the use of these reasons would fall well within the "wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market." Id. at 554, 127 S.Ct. at 1964. For the same reasons that it forecloses the Body Shops' price-fixing claim, Twombly forecloses the Body Shops' group boycott claims; their allegations allege only parallel conduct which is insufficient to create an inference of prior agreement or conspiracy. The Seventh Circuit in Quality Auto, 660 F.2d at 1206, and the Northern District of California in Workman, 520 F.Supp. at 623, rejected similar group boycott claims in this same context involving parallel conduct on the part of several insurance companies in their dealings with automobile repair shops. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the Body Shops' group boycott claims. V. THE STATE LAW CLAIMS The Body Shops bring three state law claims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and tortious interference. We address each in turn. A. Unjust Enrichment Claims The Plaintiffs in all four states bring claims of unjust enrichment against these Defendants. Under the laws of the four states relevant here-Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, and Virginia-the elements of the cause of action include: (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant was aware thereof; and (3) it would be unjust to permit the defendant to retain the benefit. The gist of the Plaintiffs' claims is that the several Body Shops conferred a benefit on the several Insurance Companies, the latter were aware thereof, and allowing the Defendants to retain the benefit without full payment would be unjust. Fatal to these unjust enrichment claims is the fact that each of the five complaints alleges that each Insurance Company advised the Body Shops that it would pay no more than State Farm. Because the Plaintiff in each complaint knew before it undertook the repair that each Defendant-Insurance Company would pay no more than State Farm would pay, it clearly was not unjust for the Insurance Company to pay only that amount and no more. Without satisfying the unjust element, the cause of action fails even if we assume the other elements can be satisfied. The Body Shops' only response to this fatal flaw is that they could not turn away sixty to ninety-five percent of the available repair business, and therefore their contract to accept the amount State Farm would pay was an invalid contract. However, the Body Shops cite no law-in any of the four states-to the effect that market power alone is sufficient to invalidate a contract voluntarily entered into. Our independent research has also uncovered no such case. Moreover, we have already concluded that the Body Shops have failed to allege facts warranting an inference that the Insurance Companies agreed to or engaged in a conspiracy. Thus, the Body Shops' premise of market power may also collapse in any event. We conclude that the Body Shops' unjust enrichment claims are wholly without merit. B. Quantum Meruit Claims The Body Shops in four of the five complaints before us also bring quantum meruit claims arising under the laws of Kentucky, New Jersey, and Virginia. To state a cause action for quantum meruit, the Body Shops were required to allege, among other elements, that the circumstances reasonably notified the Insurance Companies that the Body Shops expected to get paid (Virginia and Kentucky) or that they reasonably expected to be compensated (New Jersey). They cannot do so here. As discussed above, the Body Shops specifically alleged that each of the Insurance Companies informed them that they would pay no more than State Farm. The Body Shops then undertook the repairs. Having fully informed the Body Shops of what they were willing to pay, the circumstances could have only reasonably informed the Insurance Companies that the Body Shops expected to be paid the amount State Farm would pay. This is fatal to the Virginia and Kentucky claims. Likewise, having been fully informed that the Insurance Companies would only pay the amount State Farm would pay, the Body Shops could not have reasonably expected to receive more than that amount. This is fatal to the New Jersey claim. The Body Shops have cited no authority-and our independent research has uncovered none-to support their position that they can contract to repair the car for a specified amount, do the repair, and then sue, claiming that they should be paid more. The only analogous case law our research has uncovered suggests just the opposite of the Body Shops' position: when a plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of some amount, they cannot reasonably expect to receive additional compensation and therefore cannot bring suit to recover it. We conclude that the quantum meruit claims of the Body Shops in the four complaints are wholly without merit. C. Tortious Inference Claims Although we have concluded-as did the district court-that the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims of the Body Shops are wholly without merit, the situation with respect to their tortious interference claims is more complicated. The district court expressly adopted and approved the magistrate judge's dismissal of the tortious interference claims as a violation of the group pleading doctrine. The district court held: Consistent with this Court's prior orders, a general allegation that some unidentified Defendants-or all Defendants-interfered with some unidentified customers of some unnamed plaintiff does not satisfy the pleading standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Because the Plaintiffs' allegations are too vague to satisfy Rule 8(a), Judge Smith recommends dismissal of all the tortious interference claims. (June 3 Report at 39). Doc. 222 at 7. Although the district court invoked Iqbal, we understand its ruling to be based on a very narrow group pleading rationale, rather than a standard-issue Twombly- Iqbal determination of the plausibility of the tortious interference claims in light of the well-pleaded factual allegations. The gist of the problem with group pleading-as the magistrate judge noted earlier on page 9 of that same June 3 report-is the failure to give fair notice to each named defendant of the claims against it. For example, a complaint may fail to provide fair notice of the claims by failing to specify which defendants interfered with which plaintiffs. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). Because the district court rested its dismissal of the tortious interference claims on this narrow group pleading rationale, and because we think the district court will be well situated to determine the status of these claims on remand, we need not address the merits of the tortious interference claims or even the general contours of the doctrine of group pleading. We also do not address the relationship between that doctrine and the Twombly- Iqbal plausibility pleading standard or, for that matter, whether the allegations of tortious interference meet the plausibility standard. We address only the above-quoted narrow basis on which the district court relied. We cannot agree with the district court that the instant five complaints' failure to name a plaintiff, to identify specific defendants, or to identify specific customers in the allegations relating to tortious interference deprived the Defendants of fair notice. Contrary to the suggestion of the district court, there is no problem with respect to "some unnamed plaintiff." In four of these five cases, there is only one plaintiff and thus it is absolutely clear that the person or entity interfered with is the single named plaintiff in each complaint. Although the fifth case involves four named plaintiffs, they are four body shops located in close proximity to each other in Virginia Beach and Suffolk, Virginia. It is amply clear in this fifth complaint that each Defendant-Insurance Company is alleged to have tortiously interfered with each of these four Virginia body shops. The allegations provide fair notice that each of the Plaintiffs is claiming that each of the named Defendants is tortiously interfering in the manner alleged with the named Plaintiff in each of the four single-plaintiff complaints and with the four named Plaintiffs in the fifth case. We are also unpersuaded by the district court's concern that the allegations in the complaints concern "some unidentified Defendants-or all Defendants." The substance of the alleged tortious interference is as follows. As alleged in ¶¶ 107-08 of the representative Quality Auto complaint, each complaint alleges that the named Insurance Companies-by means of a campaign of misrepresentation of facts about poor quality, etc.-have repeatedly steered their insureds away from each named Plaintiff to punish that Plaintiff for complaints about or refusal to submit to the price ceilings and other practices imposed by the named Defendants. Although these allegations are aimed generally at "the Defendants," each complaint stipulates that, "[w]here the term 'Defendants' is used within this Complaint, 'Defendants' is intended to and does mean each and every Defendant named in the caption above." In other words, the named Defendants in each complaint had fair notice that "each and every" one of them is alleged to have improperly steered its own insureds away from the named Body Shops in each complaint because that Body Shop was not compliant with that Insurance Company's preferred reimbursement rate and other cost-saving practices. Thus, of the potential deficits identified by the district court-i.e., general allegations about "unidentified Defendants," "unidentified customers," and "unnamed plaintiff[s]"-the only possible defect remaining is the failure to identify specific insureds/potential customers who were thus steered. We cannot conclude that the Body Shops' failure to identify particular potential customers who were steered away constitutes a failure to give each defendant fair notice of the claim against it. It is not the potential customer who is the target of the alleged tortious interference; it is the targeted Body Shop. A potential customer may-but very well may not-tell the Body Shop that he or she was steered away. On the other hand, each Insurance Company, or its claims adjusters, will know whether the company engages in such a practice, and will know whether each named Plaintiff in the five complaints was noncompliant with that company's preferred practices and, most important, whether its insureds were steered away from that Plaintiff Body Shop. In sum, we are not persuaded by the district court's grounds for concluding that the allegations of tortious interference in each of these five cases violated the group pleading doctrine, i.e., failed to give fair notice to each defendant of the claim being made against it. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court only with respect to the tortious interference claims in each of these five cases, and we remand for further proceedings. We note that in vacating the judgment of the district court with respect to the tortious interference claim, we have ruled only on the district court's stated group pleading rationale. We note also, because the federal antitrust claims have been eliminated from the case, the district court may well decide to exercise its discretion to decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction of these state law tortious interference claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing all of the claims except the tortious interference claims, which we vacate and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in PART, VACATED in PART, and REMANDED. JORDAN, Circuit Judge, joined by MARTIN, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in Parts II, III, and V of the court's opinion. And given the pleading standards that the Supreme Court has put in place for antitrust cases, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 553-70, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and the complaint's failure to include important factual allegations on which the plaintiffs now rely, I concur in the judgment as to Parts I and IV. I have some concerns about a court relying on its own independent research with respect to facts on the ground, particularly in a motion to dismiss context. I am not convinced that we should be citing to a book on collision repairs, see Maj. Op. at 1257, to understand how the auto repair industry actually operates. This is not the sort of adjudicative fact-a fact which is "relevant to a determination of the claims presented in a case," Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Dist. , 369 F.3d 1197, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004) -which can be judicially noticed under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The taking of judicial notice is "a highly limited process" because it "bypasses the safeguards which are involved with the usual process of proving facts by competent evidence in district court." Shahar v. Bowers , 120 F.3d 211, 214 (11th Cir. 1997) (en banc). In my view, how the auto repair industry works is not a matter that "can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Rule 201(b)(2). Cf. A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. , 166 F.3d 191, 196 (3d Cir. 1999) (denying motion to take judicial notice that swimwear and lingerie are separate industries because "it requires a factual determination [which is] inappropriate for judicial notice"). WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: Anticompetitive exercises of buyer market power often go unpunished. Not because the antitrust laws and existing antitrust jurisprudence cannot address them, but because it is often counterintuitive. To the average non-efficiency minded observer, condemning a practice that results in low prices seems like bad policy. But low prices do not tell the whole story. Antitrust law-with its goal to enable optimal market output through competition-demands a closer look. It is in that context that this case asks us to determine when an antitrust complaint alleging an anticompetitive exercise of collective buyer market power can survive a motion to dismiss. At this early stage, the law requires us to view the complaint as a whole, accept all the allegations as true, draw all reasonable infer