Whether a plaintiff alleging economic injury must plead facts to support his theory of harm, as several circuits require, or whether a court may supplement conclusory allegations of economic harm (i.e., but for alleged misrepresentations about a product's safety, consumers would not have bought a product, would have paid less for it, or would have bought a cheaper alternative) by supplanting the lack of facts with its own "common sense" and "experience," as the First Circuit here held?

Whether a plaintiff alleging economic injury must plead facts to support his theory of harm, as several circuits require, or whether a court may supplement conclusory allegations of economic harm with its own 'common sense' and 'experience'