that function the ordinary function of a tracking cookie. As stated above, in discussing the function of the defendants’ cookies, the complaint describes them as having an associative function only.65 In view of our common sense reading of the operative allegations of the complaint, we note the factual position that the defendants advanced at argument: “The cookie doesn’t acquire anything . . . The cookie doesn’t look for anything. It just sits on the browser and gets sent along with information that would otherwise be sent.”66 The information at issue would be sent anyway because “the user’s web browser send[s] a GET request to Google to display the relevant advertising information for the space on the page for which Google has agreed to sell display advertisements.”67 We note also that, at argument, the plaintiffs’ counsel was directly asked on six separate occasions to clarify what transmissions they believed were improperly acquired and/or how the defendants’ cookies functioned.68 The plaintiffs’ counsel did not provide a direct response on any of these occasions. At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage “we accept the pleader’s description of what happened to him or her along with any 65 Compl. ¶¶ 46, 95, 96, 151, 156. 66 Oral Arg. Tr. at 25. 67 Compl. ¶ 86. 68 Oral Arg. Tr. at 9-10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 33