plaintiffs and the nd issue is whether it's plausible for duncan's angus steak representations to mislead or deceive consumers to believe that it's sandwich products include an intact piece of angus beef when in fact the sandwiches instead include a beef patty containing ground beef with fillers and binders beginning with the state law consumer fraud claims the district court erred in finding in their own mind that a reasonable consumer could not be misled by duncan's advertising of its breakfast sandwiches as containing angus steak the essence of the plaintiff's now appellants claim is that duncan advertised it sandwiches as ha say when in fact it was ground beef together with fillers and binders and you have like chopped steak hamburger steak those are types of foods that you sometimes see you might see hamburger steak but typically when you refer to stake your friend to an intact piece of meat that's of the advertisements themselves all of them focus you couldn't have a closer focus of the sandwich itself including that it is clearly a patty and not an intact piece of steak so how could any consumer be confusing their trying to deceive consumers why would they repeatedly during their commercial show like this is from the record of how how look out close up that is i looked at the commercials myself that they from several seconds there showing the sandwich as close as you could possibly see show the paddy i think there are other issues but that would be closer question but they showed the patty repeatedly close up and the price a price in the produce two points to be made st the st your honor the the angus steak representation appeared in various forms the product itself was labeled that way the television commercials which and focus argument is that a representing now that by even with complaint talks you know the photographs and the pricing that's still the argument and that's a plausible argument you say it's plausible because the emphasis of the advertising campaign overall is that it's steak and the advertising doesn't disappear in the commercial and you know we used a complaint is not commercials you had no detail about for example in the store when you walk in the store you didn't on a ledge when you walk into the store there's no pictures of the sandwich or any like that right well correct there is more detail about the commercial but the other forms of advertising were went in on june st and bought it obviously saw that it was a patty and then paid the same price on june th why if she was paying that extra money because she believed it was steak why would she have and was deceived why would she have bought the exact same product three days later for the exact same price i don't know why she would have but at least the st time she bought it she was clearly able to be deceived by the representations of duncan jurisdiction or some of the the plaintiffs are from other states you have multiple states involved yes and have you certain multiple state laws in the complaint yes and  some of the plaintiffs their claims were dismissed solely for lack of jurisdiction yes i think it was four or five appointed were dismissed on that basis and watching for the merits of the state law and what's your argument on personal jurisdiction then we don't seem to have a nd circuit case on new york law but we do have one on connecticut law we have the brown decision on connecticut  diameter why do we not follow brown for purposes of the new york statute brown in the difference between brown and connecticut in new york is the connecticut with their registration statute for corporations was deemed not to provide consented to reception might somehow is to new york statute substantively different if it is from the connecticut statute well we're asserting consent based jurisdiction based on that statute and the new york version of the registration has been found to provide but they're not even construing their own statute to provide consent in general jurisdiction by registering so if the new york courts are not reading their own statute that way why should well there's definitely a lot of confusion over the issue i don't disagree with as far as this particular case that issue was not raised previously so our position is that they consent the following to be they argued a brown looked at  on the impact of time later and the new york courts the nd to partner in the th department based upon donald concluded that their own new york law did not provide well previously the understood all based on that's true previously however the understanding overall for new york was and in this court in brown even said it that the registration statute quote according brown has definitely been construed have please the court william produced on behalf of duncan brands parent company of the duncan franchise or the courts that affirm the decision below for two basic reasons st the district court correctly held that exercising general jurisdiction in new york based soley on duncan's registration to do business here would be unconstitutional under dimer but this court does not even have to reach that constitutional question because recent new york intermediate appellate decisions made clear that under new york law registration does not entail consent to general jurisdiction nd the district court correctly held that point of chen has no plausible claim of deception duncan's ads contain zoomed in images of steak patties and chen herself alleges that she purchase these sandwiches on multiple occasions with the same patties inside just with that issue addressed the claims of the other plaintiffs including understand i mean how do we the  that's when you just give us great i think this is just really underscores we now have three intermediate appellate court decisions their recent on point unanimous decisions squarely holding that registration does not entail consent their whole theory as you heard is based on consent and so that those cases just undermine the state law underpinning of their of their claim and i think you know this as just as you've pointed out that you know this court had the same sort of situation and brown and i think this case is actually much much easier than brown for this court in brown you had one intermediate appellate decision that contained a statement that registration in connecticut actually did entail consent to a general jurisdiction but this court determined that the test statutory text and structure suggested otherwise and that statement was just just dicta here you have you don't have to roll up your sleeves and do that kind of de novo state  interpretive analysis yourself these three cases have done it for you so you can just follow them you would need a really compelling reason to rule otherwise plaintiff counsel in their presentation referenced this  decision in baghdad and i bar explains in great detail why the interpretation of the regular registration statute in baghdad in just wasn't quite as broad as some subsequent cases had head had suggested explains is that under bag in the registration statute entails consent not to general jurisdiction itself but to the appointment of a local process agent authorized to receive service a process in new york is territorial framework that's enough for personal jurisdiction general or specific but after damn little we know it's not so you know i bar and best and vaca they were just as down by dad in is this court would be and they found it to be distinguishable if the court doesn't have any further questions about about personal jurisdiction on a move to the merits and i think judge bianco i think you pointed to what i think is the easiest way for this court to resolve this case which is just the ads themselves i think if you if the owners have not yet viewed the ads i would encourage you to do so the videos themselves are part of the record we provided links in our brief and if if you watch them there are zoomed in close up images of paddy's for a significant portion of all three of these advertisements i think if you if you watch them you just can't come away with any conclusion other than that this is this is a san other possible advertisements that duncan may have may have put out there there's just no detail about them whatsoever there's a single a single paragraph allegation in the complaint that there are point of purchase advertisements and in store menus but there's just no detail about what the statements are in in those in those advertisements what pictures accompany them what text to companies then there's just no to no detail at all  in this court's decision and think this court made clear that context is key you can't cross the threshold from possibility into plausibility without without actually providing the actual has this this claim to proceed is that she watched these ads she said she watched them repeatedly that the only inference you can draw is that she saw the whole thing including all the visual disclosures and then she went to a dunkin donuts franchise in flushing she put down her two dollars for four dollars for and angus take an egg snack and go wrap or are a sandwich she saw it she held it in her hand she ate it presumably patty and all and then three days later she came back into the whole thing again enjoyed it i think she must have and i think she also could've been deceived and that goes for the st time and the nd time if she had been deceived after she learned the truth she would expect something to change but nothing changed in fact at this point if a court has no further returning to the jurisdiction even if you can consent to per personal jurisdiction registration statute is deemed constitutionally constrained personal jurisdiction should still be available if the jurisdiction is not restricted by the th amendment so it's not an all or nothing situation in a case  and two they have sort of this intermediate approach which they don't obliterate the concern from the registration statute they say that consent exists to the extent  personal jurisdiction would be constitutional so using that type of standard in this case we have consent and we have contact with new york and the contact is related to the claims by the both the resident plaintiff and the nonresident so it's the same issue it's the same advertising is the same sandwich it's the same ingredients all of which are controlled by duncan so if we look at that and we take into consideration the fact that the claims are related and there is consent and we use those as factors we can still find acceptable jurisdiction just to