The Court further found that the "mere fact that Citadel Securities is an important business partner. .. does not provide sufficient motive to conspire" and that Plaintiffs' theory was "even less plausible given that the CCAC provides an 'obvious alternative explanation' for imposing trading restrictions": the increased collateral requirements caused by market volatility. These conclusions hold even more force with respect to the Amended Antitrust Complaint, the defendants say. The plaintiffs abandon any pretense of arguing that any of the brokers besides Robinhood that implemented restrictions substantially similar to those at issue here did so for any unlawful reason. Plaintiffs provide no additional factual allegations that Citadel Securities offered any inducement or made any threat to Robinhood that led Robinhood to put purchase limits in place. The Plaintiffs do not explain why Robinhood would have complied with a hypothetical demand of that kind.