that the competitors engaged in independent action and therefore failed to plausibly plead the existence of a conspiracy under section 1 of the Sherman Act. In so holding, the Court understated the significance of consciously parallel behavior as evidence of agreement and left little or no room for tacit agreements in the meaning of contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy . (4) Section 5 of this Act rejects the Twombly Court’s cramped reading of the Sherman Act’s language, clarifies that the words contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy encompass tacit agreements, and specifies the standards for pleading and proving a contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy under sections 1 and 3(a) of the Sherman Act. 4. Consciously parallel pricing coordination (a) Definitions (1) The term consciously parallel pricing coordination means a tacit agreement among two or more persons to raise, lower, change, maintain, or manipulate pricing for the purchase or sale of reasonably interchangeable products or services. (2) The term person has the meaning given the term in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. 12(a) ). (b) Consciously parallel pricing coordination In a civil action, including an action brought by the United States or by a State attorney general, or by the Federal Trade Commission under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ), consciously parallel pricing coordination is a contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce under sections 1 and 3(a) of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1 , 3(a)). (c) Prima facie case (1) A claimant establishes a prima facie case of consciously parallel pricing coordination by demonstrating that two or more persons— (A) engaged in substantially similar action, within a substantially similar time period, with respect to pricing for reasonably interchangeable products or services