conclusions that can reasonably be drawn therefrom.”69 This standard permits the dismissal of a complaint “when [the] defendant’s plausible alternative explanation is so convincing that plaintiff’s explanation is im plausible.”70 Here, the operative allegations of the complaint support only the conclusion that the defendants acquired the plaintiffs’ internet history information by way of GET requests that the plaintiffs sent directly to the defendants, and that the defendants deployed identifier cookies to make the information received from GET requests associable and thus trackable. And though the portion of the complaint pertaining to the Wiretap Act contains statements to the contrary, we need not give legal effect to “conclusory allegations” that are contradicted by the pleader’s actual description of what happened.71 In short, our understanding of the plaintiffs’ allegations is that the defendants acquired the plaintiffs’ internet history information when, in the course of requesting webpage advertising content at the direction of the visited website, the plaintiffs’ browsers sent that information directly to the defendants’ servers. 69 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1357 (3d ed.) (“Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6)”). 70 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). 71 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1357. 34