to be notified he wants them to give consent he wants to give them access to certain data every one of these categories of injunctive relief would benefit only mr hodges and person similar was situat that is comcast cable subscribers he says is question this is a cable provider i assume that means that they're the exclusive payment provider for sharing where the cable prior sat right there are we competition in most of the areas in california or on or so come individually he doesn't assert those on behalf of any other person so we can drop those out of the case that leaves only the notice sent aspects of the injunctive relief and here's what he says page thirty two of the read brief might be it's an important  these requirements quote pertain only to cable subscribers and that is people who sign up for comcast cable service and whose names are listed in comcast records effect he goes on your honor page twenty eight of the read brief limited to subscribers they don't apply to anybody besides drivers the data issue is only us oblique aleck to from subscribers notice is only required to be given to subscribers and access could only be was to prevent religious center from offering the loan terms to the public to any person from the public who walked into any one of its stores in the word hell a formula in violation of a cornet that was an outward facing public facing and victimized by them this is not in our case a public facing injunction it is an inward facing injunction that applies by its own terms only to those who have a contractual relationship already with us or who might in the future choose to enter into defined not as terms of class action law but in terms of mcgill individual use similar individual similar loses would later they would enter into a contractual relationship and it is the nature of that contractual relationship the relationship between the company and its particular customers rather than the public at large that is the issue in this case this is an advertising case this isn't the math but that there are also people who have to decide whether to enter into a contract with know up with comcast or not they the fact that they have a choice and this is one of the reasons i asked explosive a question earlier if they have no functional choice in some places as you said that is if the motive analysis leads to the conclusion that every injunction to mr perry mr if this concept that you know anybody in the future necessarily means this public wouldn't clifford of come out different because there you've comcast violations of the and the cable act and an injunction preventing comcast ongoing violations of the statutes from injuring yet more california requiring tom caste to into your opposing counsel the key issue is why does why does the fact that it might incidentally affect public affect people in the future which is true i think i agree with your opposing counsel that is future employees and the clippers so that seems to be the key issue for me as is why it's a dental of the incidental effect of helping future people that might decide to join the class why that somehow makes the public injunctive relief and injunction seems to be targeted at the same group the same class of people whether it's employees in clipper or whether it's comcast subscribers here if it's part of those people just the mare fact that somebody can join that g injury that you're trying to stop here you're trying the main part of the injunction is trying to stop injury to people in the class in this class and the fact that people might join the class later if that's enough to make a public facing re her public and judge to believe them why isn't why isn't every injunction public really that's what that's the question into the answer why isn't every injunction public really all you have to do is have one person one person who might join the class later is enough to make it up if comcast cable subscribers but after reviewing comcast spud likely available privacy policy if that privacy policy was accurate and fully disclosed all of the information about the information comcast collects they might violations so it is that it seems to me it's exact same situation as and the difference between this case and clifford is that the statutes here go to the informational harm in the informational interest that we're seeking to protect for future you know for members of the public who would be covered by the injunctive relief the wage and hour statutes include for it don't go to that the heart of that informational harm but full disclosure of privacy policy so that people can make an informed decision about whether they want to have cable service under those conditions is what the california legislature was concerned about what it required advanced written consent and what the congress was concerned about when it required advanced written consent and for cable providers to make that information available when people request it i want to go to something that opposing counsel said this let me ask you a follow up question about that then you say  ghost informational harm but i just don't see how that's distinguishing at the end of the day your your your main all this injunctive relief has to do with him subscribers being harmed because they are having their data misuse and it seems to me that know what they're doing so i don't i don't i don't see it's not actually informational harm directly the actual thing you're trying to jump the belief to help is is the is the fact that these cable subscribers that is being misused is that correct few points underpaying somebody or if you're not paying them correctly you're affecting everybody in your house little that depends on that way that it says about why our that's the argument that is the best justice is far reaching or more far reaching than the in the fact a future harm somehow to a class of people that that people may join somehow makes it really all again you know there are multiple components to the release that we're seeking and those components primarily are forward looking because they go to future violations of kalpa pharmac california consumer protection laws as blair mentioned in footnote three they're not talking about remedying people who were already hard was the relief at issue in  to honor previously purchased subscriptions so that is the quintessential circumscribed class of the only people who have purchased the product in the past and were harmed by the misrepresentation sought i miss mcgill on behalf of future customers or potential customers of citi bank it was not a representative action which would require the class action   it can be broader than what it might be ascertainable or certifiable as a class as i mentioned before it could be people who contemplate subscribing to comcast and after learning all the full information about comcast policies they choose not to do so you know that that's a subjective determination that they would be making but that is the sort of release that california's legislature has authorized under the unfair competition law the false advertising law the consumer le problem of men in the complaint or something and sat in the complaint as such now we do have several specific counts of the jump to release that we see which are models on the requirements of both the and the cable act and i just wanted to in that regard clarify context of somebody who's actually already signing up and then maybe you give them lots of disclosure is as far as the relief you guys are talking about but that's kind of i that's what i understood judge is going to be asking is which you have the type relief to the general public does that fit in a case like this i don't really hear whether or not i have two quick responses to that one is the comcast privacy policy which is where this information should be disclosed is publicly available on the internet we cite to it or a previous version of it at in the complaint to page ninety six dollars of the excerpts of record so this is a disclosure action or that the relief we seek is false and disclosure is a kin to the advertising cases and the nd point i would make is that not all actions for public injunctive relief under california law involve false advertising they are being a parroted matic example of that and so again i would ask that the court either affirm or which then picks up another statute on notice there are only two statutes the federal law it was the laws that it was nothing about notice so were the federal law i entirely agree with mr when she said that the statutes go to the horman interest issue and that the legislature has made the decision about the scope of relief in the federal cable act and section five hundred and fifty one could not be clearer that the notice required which is sought to be enforced by this injunction is limited to cable subscribers it does not go to do i get the notice then and what are the stashes requirement whether the notice the statute require the notice to be given at the time is a trip shouldn't every year after that it is available on the website if anybody wants to look at it but it is not a public notice required it was a subscriber notice requirement it's is standing for the proposition eight that that all it takes is that if you enjoy any future violations that's enough to be public injunctive relief and if not then what is the distinction that cannot be the answer your honor because crews of course was a future violation case arising under the u c i and the california supreme court drew the exact same distinction between public and private injunctions it's very question jeff and i just found a page ninety of me bill relief that has the primary purpose or effect of preventing injury to an individual plaintiff or group of individuals similarly situated to the point of does not constitute public and don't you believe that is this case that is why the sought to force the company to change its pricing its rates and print purchase price options going forward for anybody who walked into the store in the future and the current plans of wouldn't it have benefited from that injunction this injunction request plaintiff class they are they are going to get the better price that's correct your honor she'd already paid for x box it was in the past you she was suing literally for a future change for something that would affect other