which is larkin against finance system of green bay radiology and doing so to send mailed letters to my clients which included materially false statements contrary to what the fs g b wrote in his letters to my clients doctors spokeo spoke you know makes no counter counsel i ask a particular question please tell me exactly how your client suffered concrete injury we can discuss spoke aoa later your client's injury could you please describe concretely the injury suffered yes the injury suffered is th you say that the defendant sent false information which violated the statute spoke ala holds that a violation of a statute is not enough i am i am asking and this will be the last time i will ask it for you to describe the concrete injury your client suffered in addition to what i mentioned i believe that the spoken was pretty clear that the the harm that is required for such care the the letters discussed of the need for payment in order to preserve preserve good credit ratings and and  a credit record with the with the doctors offices and that by failing to do that it is to undermine what they refer to as the faith of the doctor has in the patient treated by the doctor or if i am going to because you'll be treated as a doctor going to it for the fact the doctors medical judgment was expect to treatment you know the actual language of the letters i fear that i do not think that that supports hyperbolic you know character sation mean to meet those statements recognize the type of natural consequence a bug paid bills and i would think that an unsophisticated consumer would interpret the letters a care i agree that the certainly theirs is not expressly stated let's drop medical care how ever the we're dealing here with not just creditors we're dealing with medical services unique that's different than other types of credit and other types of transactions where doctors for a you know what amounts to here was was a relatively small something that you know green bay radiology does it does not impact the in any way what they do they don't maintain a credit rating they don't maintain a credit record  these are false statements about what this creditor greenbay radiology and the doctors there do it's a false statement and and certainly false statements with regard to credit reporting and credit standing and credit rating are the types of things that the court has found as being material  the so that's our position with respect to way these statements are made there's no reason for those statements to be in these letters other than to try to induce the consumer to make a payment and by including them and the fact that they are false misrepresents to the consumer and as to the nature of what in fact standing in this case because the appellants have not articulated a harm and the issue here is just like and to see if there's no harm no foul which is that these are after the fact complaints regarding statements but there is no allegation of any impact on the response for the right to keep me of the consumer and so based on that alone there is no harm that is at issue to create standing in this case for the a really is on point with that and the analysis that was done that was put in a brief as well as to how the court looked at the issue of standing which is what occurred that that actually created a risk going to actual harm to the consumers rights allege that the letters contained language that was abusive deceptive unfair debt collection practice i mean that's that's not really a procedural violation it's true but  and what is alleged for the allegation are relevant if you have to assume that they're cruel and there can't be a rigorous analysis of those allegations and so it is broader that well the six but here they're just simply are no allegation other than a legal recitation of a conclusion which is not sufficient to allege standing there has to be an allegation of what the harm is the factual allegations supporting the harm not just a statement that there is harm maybe the harm is that they position well it's a little bit outside the scope of the of the record but i would say a the pellant position on what a credit rating is broader than what that term actually means if you google just do a definitional search of credit rating it's really just what she did that in preparation for this which is it is the estimate of the ability of a person to fulfill their financial commitments based on previous dealings it's not a credit score it's not as though not the words that were used so it's it's not our position that there was some kind of there's not a credit bureau and the fact that the argument by appellants is making that kind of inferential each is sort of bizarre and idiosyncratic under the cases but more broadly just that past dealings will instill a level of comfort of the whether or not they will continue to pay or not pay so i think that it's more of a condescends approach there's not really a parents have not articulated an actual or risk of harm here that would be sufficient to confer standing but even if there was there is an issue with the actual claims here of the substance of merit of the claims and this is not like c the context other case is allowed a geisha is that any of the core requirements of a collection letter that communicate concrete information were somehow inaccurate no allegations regarding that the services or the debt is valid regarding the amount or fees or anything like that about the toft no allegation about any of the consumer protection disclosures not being included this is about an ocular statement that don't convey any concrete information that are basically aspirational and the inferential leap that appellant's are making is to too much it's too wide to to be supported in the case law to go from you don't want to lose too even if appellate argument is accepted that the physician don't know which i'm not sure is an accurate assumption to make but even if that's true we're not talking about the physician that's the creditor until maybe it's a billing department maybe it's whatever but the  the fact is the argument asserted by the appellant are going far beyond the language in the weather and as a matter of law we have to look at the letters themselves and the complaint itself and  particular statement don't don't convey anything concrete about the debt and even if accepted these are all true statements either true statements the point of collection letters is to collect that of course the point is to have the consumer pay a creditor hire the collection a day or retained one dollar in order to collect that too of course they want the consumer to pay in response to that there's nothing itself is protecting and i would i would say that this goes well beyond what the statute it is framed to protect against i would even if there is some kind of technical misstatement under the th circuit it has to be both false and material and for the same reasons really and from what we discussed understanding there is no material misstatement here because there was no impact on the consumer's response to that th was simply nothing that occurred and nothing that was it was alleged that occurred as a result of the innocuous statement but that's what paid didn't call it didn't do anything and so that in and of itself that failure to allege any different response as a matter of law it was not really the issue there was that overshadow the thirty day validation right because it's stated that it was a valid that i think jobs and basically the court that's a little too far but inferentially for us to make th which found in favor that there that there was standing if this court were to decide that there was a an issue as to standard than the i think the appropriate remedy is not to  of a nationally a procedural issue and what would you say about your client's interest or your client's injury i should say if you were permitted to comment well we we court referred to in the majority opinion to slander per se where there is no we can identify the heart and actual sort of actual damages common law in nature of damages that flow from it but a slander per se justice thomas concurrence refer to a trespass where someone could invade the the the space that someone owns in terms of property but there's no actual damage that those are invasions of substantive rights and we contend that invasion of subset of rights without the need to allege any other harm is sufficient when it comes to a procedural violation then there must be an identification of how the the the procedural violation placed a material risk of harm to harm that congress has identified we contend that these are not procedural violations these are substantive violations the right to receive  information and the corresponding duty of a deck like to provide accurate information we we can and i want to go back to there's a link that involves the  the expression about loss of faith but we start with is that these letters specifically said that there was a a credit rating maintained by the doctor's office with the doctor's office to maintain a good credit rating and think it necessarily implies that the doctor's office maintains a credit rating and the same thing with saying is to make you know to make a payment in order to clear your credit record implies that the doctors are making some kind of credit records and are searching is that that doesn't exist the doctor is not looking at credit ratings not maintaining a credit record that may be you know a cow record or you know a voting record of what's maybe owed on accountant what gets paid by insurance and what gets paid directly by the patient but but those facts you know we've alleged that those that there is no such thing as as the a credit rating or credit records that are maintained by the creditor who is in a doctor's office and we're not talking about a bank of america chase bank we're talking about radiology practice and from those facts that we're saying is when you couple that with saying that you don't want your doctor lose faith well the loss of faith will only matter to the consumer if there's an ongoing relationship it's never going to see the doctor again or that practice again there's no reason to be worried about what the faith is so being worried about what faith they're going to lose does go clearly not in any way false or or deceptive and the so that's how we look at this and that's also we look at is that the section is designed to prevent that collectors from coercing payments from debtors by falsely leading them to believe that the failure to pay the debt will adversely affect the debtors credit rating and ability to obtain credit that's a quote from tenet and that's in our in our in our principle brief on page nineteen so the denial over the the effect on credit records or credit rating is absolutely m and lester's questions i have nothing else thank you mr stern cases taken under advisement and the court will be enr