We do not hide the fact that we like the TwIqbal twins,Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Dismissals, even with leave to amend, are nice, but there is something more fundamental about requiring that pleadings provide meaningful information to the opposing party and the court about what the case is about. As product liability defense lawyers, we tend to focus on how the difference between an uninformative boilerplate complaint and a complaint that spells out the pertinent facts and claims matters to the defendant. We and our clients find it easier to do things like answer, move to dismiss, and map out a strategy for the case when the complaint includes information like the product at issue, when it was used, what injury it allegedly caused, where and when that injury happened, and what acts or omissions allegedly create liability. If the complaint labels the causes of action being asserted, says what jurisdiction’s law is supposed to be implicated, and/or matches up the acts and omissions to the particular causes of actions, well, then that is just a bonus in our experience. Not only do we use complaints to categorize cases by products, injuries, time of use in relation to events like label changes, lag from injury to filing, etc., but we have somewhere in our mind that at some point in the future we will be filing something with the court that includes a sentence like “plaintiff asserts causes of action for a, b, and c” and asks for something. It is helpful at that point, whether it be on a motion to dismiss not based onTwIqbal, a summary judgment motion, proposed jury instructions, or something else, to not have to argue about the plaintiff has asserted something different than the a, b, and c we listed. It is certainly helpful throughout the course of discovery, motions practice, and pretrial proceedings to have in mind the right a, b, and c so you are not wasting your efforts on α, β, and γ if א, ב, and ג are being asserted.