has historically operated. Third, it is generally unremarkable for the pendulum in oligopolistic markets to swing from less to more interdependent and cooperative. See Areeda & Hoven-kamp, supra, ¶ 1431a, at 229 (noting that the degree of interdependence “may be either weak or strong and may vary, from time to time within a given market”). Accordingly, the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs does not show an abrupt shift in behavior that can support a reasonable inference of a conspiracy. 5. Pretextual explanations for price increases Finally, we address the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Chocolate Manufacturers’ pretextual explanations for their price increases support a reasonable inference of a conspiracy. See Fragale & Sons Beverage Co. v. Dill, 760 F.2d 469, 474 (3d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The Chocolate Manufacturers publicly
recognizing a public policy against discrimination but not providing for an independent cause of action recognizing the cause of action recognizing that pretextual ex planations for disputed conduct would disprove the likelihood of independent action recognizing cause of action recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor