Osborn Prop. Compl. ¶ 105. To be certain, Plaintiffs also rely on certain economic assumptions about supply and demand: that other consumers besides the Plaintiffs are price conscious; that bank operators will respond to consumer demand for cards tied to low-cost networks; and that in the face of competitive pressure, ATM networks will reduce their network fees. But these sorts of assumptions are provable at trial. See United Transp. Union, 891 F.2d at 912 n. 7 (allegations “founded on economic principles,” while “perhaps not as reliable as allegations based on the laws of physics, are at least more akin to demonstrable facts than are predictions based only on speculation.”); Ill. Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 758, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, allegations of economic harm “based
recognizing in the context of damages that antitrust cases often involve tracing a cost increase through several levels of a chain of distribution recognizing that it often takes a new franchise several years before it begins making money recognizing protection of the tourist industry as significant in a damages context holding the logic of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in antitrust cases does not warrant its extension to civil rights cases recognizing that lack of binding authority is often dispositive in the plainerror context