these cases and none of the issues identified by the district court below barred a path to class certification here i will focus on three issues predominant comcast and c for this case is about why the alleged uniform representation the bar free no promise that the dog food is biologically appropriate made with fresh original ingredients and never outsource is misleading based on what is not told consumers the alleged omission and the alleged omissions here are the common practice of using non fresh ingredients including regrinding expired or frozen ingredients the common practice of using non regional ingredients plural and also the risk or inclusion of heavy metals b p a kind of article the different court did not consider the alleged emissions in design classification here and instead focus on context but that  practice is using multiple non original ingredients and finally not a single bag discloses the brisker inclusion of heavy metals b p a or pen of article after finding that common issues against the individual and so here the district court did laser focus in on one issue that he held was common but then under the commonality standard which is whether the book free no promises are mislabeling or miss miss miss levy and she stopped there and he did not go on to consider any of the other potential common issues that this case involves we see there are many and also the big concern here is that it is the allegations here is what are the whether the befre no promises are misleading and based on the specific omission and that is a reasonable consumer standard so you don't have to focus in on if one specific consumer was more interested in having a lamb product versus a fish product and if that was true then there really could be no classification of any type of cases where there's a variety of flavor of a product because that would come into play and that would cut off classification of any consumer protection statute consumer protection class action where there's let's say we do lace chips and they have ones that are french onion and they might have one the barbecue and if we are able to say will that could never be certified because the person buying the barbecue is more interested in spicy where maybe a different person was more interested in the the amount of calories and that is just not a consideration at the predominant standard under the consumer protection right but what another representation had to do with fresh ingredients are locally sourced ingredients and those are a lot closer i think by way of analogy to follow up on what judge parker asked you to the cases where we have spent a lot of ink and a lot of time trying to decide what one hundred percent natural means because that might need mean different things to different people right and so to just follow up on his point or there are other terms and the go beyond and strikes me as more problematic than the examples you just gave peterson about literally the difference between chicken or lamb right some of them are subjects are much more subjective players disagree that any of it is relevant because the overall message busy is champion a reference but that does not change that any of those disclosures do not clean up the lack of telling consumers that there's a common practice of regret none of the bags and none of the contents that are contacts that defendants have raised deal with regret none of that context deals with expired ingredients in fact champion itself has a policy that when a ingredient comes in they add an additional will those suppliers usually have three to four days before best shelf life they had fourteen days there's nothing on these bags that tell the consumer that this is a concern nor anything on the bag even if they do disclose one international ingredient that there's multiple national international ingredients it is the overwhelming pictures of these consumers is that this food is made with fresh regional what i can see that they all have not been exposed to the same misrepresentation no because the misrepresentation that's alleged share the overarching misrepresentation of the free no and as the court noted that's a uniform message they also offer free no and they all of them did not see any of the disclosures regarding the omissions so we do see it means different things to different purchases  but that you're on the right that's not a consideration that comes into classification under the california consumer protections that uses it doesn't have to be focused on that one consumer might care more about crash and another consumer may care more about biologically appropriate it's whether or not it's material and that we have common proof of as shown in the record below and we also have our whether or not their material and champions champion argues that the district court had no reason to consider the alleged omissions because of the raised hot issue but that's incorrect and a common question of whether the uniform omissions would deceive a reasonable consumer exists here even if the basics are not word for word identical as they overwhelmingly and and repeatedly promote champions marketing montra of the free no and they do not disclose the alleged omissions and the answer to this question would drive the resolution of the claims and therefore sufficient to establish predominant in this follows in line with relevant authority including this decision this court's decisions in yokoyama and the california court of appeals decision in mcadams there was absolutely no wayne or considering the common evidence in the record that shows the materiality which is what the omissions but how do we get to a common class answer like there are eight each label posed a different question didn't champion using non fresh ingredients based on the evidence in the record that would apply class wise that would have nothing to do with the additional contacts on the bag another common answer that could be answered by the l of evidence without right and that comes on from the evidence in the record and also from our survey or expert report showing why it is material and given the documents show that this information is material they chose the free no for a very specific reason it drives their sales it's their marketing mantra they put that out there to induce consumers to purchase and pay that high premium ninety dollars a dog this is not a twenty five dollars dog and they would court focuses solely or gives too much weight to one issue over others that is fair and so that here the district court focus too  exclusive weight to one question there were fourteen questions there were and and including at at that point you could have turned the district court could have turned and subclass if you if if the context was an issue and plaint did request that both in the reply in an oral argument that we could subclass the right diet or even limited to just the base the plan of purchase and then this whole issue of whether or not the context raises individual issues is not a problem that shouldn't that would have satisfied predominance easily i would also like to quickly gets at comcast because he also held that comcast was not met for the same reasons that he held the predominance was not met and that was because he focused so in the misrepresentation and contest all is required is that it's skybus to our liability theory and that it you cannot test omissions without giving information to the survey respondents to the consumers and that's what are correct the statement did we could not have tested the misrepresentations as to emissions because they were on the bay there was nothing for us to pull from the bank so we had to give our doctor crossett had to give information to consumers when he was testing what would the value of this dog food be if the non disclose nothing for us to test as a representation as to heavy metals b p a because they don't say anything and so that's where the court erred because in that type of damages model has been found proper true thanks she does and she thinks it's misleading to say the ingredients are fresh when in fact many have much of this i think her position as much has been frozen so i'm just trying to tease out whether or not that is your what is your response to that response is that if they say at that sir but i'm trying to figure out why i appreciate that i didn't mean to suggest otherwise but this is the context i think the district was trying to figure out was trying to get his arms around in order and figure out when there's a common answer to this question please getting back to back you know in the forty seven labels do any of the labels say the ingredients were frozen f those passes the same line to theory let me ask you this why isn't the theory of damages there that any responsible or loving pet owner who became aware of the risk that a bag of dog food they ha might contain that ingredient which simply cannot serve it to their dog so it is in fact valueless to them and it's not like it's there they're trying to capture the reduced value just people would just throw that away receive a full refund and what i'm asking why is that not seems to me perfectly reasonable to assume that no owner even if they don't know for sure whether the bag of dog food they're holding in their hands contains that substance if they just were aware that there was a risk that they'd be feeding their dog that substance they would not do so and so therefore basically what they're holding in their hands is a bag of trash that they're going to throw away so why would i think that scenario would be entitled theory or any other theory on a class like basis because let's talk about the crossing survey for example which goes to their price premium fear and all those questions that the respondents were asked for traffic by pla before is an option as to the common issues as to liability busy some of which have been raised here including the pen to bar recall issue where that is something that we could prove and we have the ability to prove based on their own documents for instance their corporate represent their thirty six testimony saying that they did not inform consumers because they didn't want to shock the market that they had actually made food with  of our calls painted palo also as to the representation they do full disclosures as to where all the ingredients come from from the basis that's not correct they may disclose a non regional ingredient here or there there is no disclosure as and there's no tracing as to every ingredient in the back of the bag and finally this case is and always been about the risk and that is what our press statements the risk of heavy metals and it's a risk because people know that there is a potential health issue with it so we've never banned in the thing and we've never changed anything that has always been about the risk or commonplace practices that campion thank you for your time thank you both will take this case under five and move