Plaintiff’s complaint alleged a viable Sherman Act section 1 antitrust conspiracy among dentist members of the Dental Board of California to harass and intimidate plaintiff which sought to engage in a disruptive new direct to consumer model of marketing clear dental aligners to members of the public. The members of the dental board were not immune from antitrust liability merely by participating as members of that state agency. They would, instead, have to qualify for state action immunity. Also, the district court erred in requiring the plaintiff to plead that defendants acted outside the board’s regulatory purpose.