has been effectively resolved by this court's decision in van patten so unless this court has questions on that issue i plan to focus my time on the other two questions in this appeal the first of those two questions is whether the rosendahl act permits debt collectors to violate the statute with impunity so long as they stop violating the law if they get sued and the second question is whether california law prohibits a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on hounding someone with unwanted calls despite the fact that california law has adopted the second restatement of torts on this issue and that receipt and says otherwise the answer to both of these questions is no counsel let me just ask the banks in this so the i believe that argument is based on the fact that in her application for a credit card she gave them her home phone number and at some point later gave her and her cell phone number which is where these calls were but this c rules are clear that you can revoke your consent under the t c p a and there's evidence in the record that she did that so at seventy five is her declaration telling which says that she told them to stop calling on july second which is before the vast majority of the calls were made only one call was made before then so the suit is about the hundreds of calls that were made after then you're not seeking damages for the earlier calls prior to her consent that's her i'd rather  just have it for the one call that happened before she revoked consent that's correct i think two hundred ninety four of the calls happened after that a little trickier because i think it eighty one opposing parties version of stopping was just stopped for five days right when she revoked her consent the policy was ok we won't call for five days that's correct that's what they said but the c p a says you can't you can never call  r calls are never permitted once consent has been revoked if she didn't grant consent again later she revoked consent and then never never again permitted them to call so under the t c p that would be a violation going to the rosenthal act as we stated in our response to the bank's twenty a j letter although we disagree with the decision after working we recognize that it for closes argument that the cure provision of the rosenthal act does not apply  but that doesn't change the outcome in this case because the banks didn't and couldn't possibly cure their violation of the act which is that they called mr merrill hundreds of times against her will so with the banks argue so what is an example of a done with and they can't possibly undo the harm that's caused the violation after work is a good example of a curable violation so in that case there was a mistake in a complaint a relatively minor mistake about the amount of the debt in the complaint and once they realized the mistake they corrected the amount and no harm was done such a curable violation and the rosenthal act where he was a lot of these kinds of misstatements violations things that you can imagine would be easily corrected without anything happening there was in the act also prohibits things like using violence to collect a debt so punching someone in the face to try to get them to pay you for things like unwanted telephone calls and these things are things that cause harm that you can't go back and  do later and so that's what's unclear what's incurable well what you're saying makes sense i just wonder is there any authority for it that has a california courts really talked about what is or is not incurable within the meaning of the safe harbor provision  within not for this statute so there is another california statute the open meetings acts statute that also has a care provision and the california court of appeal in a case called page took a look at that statute and the argument was if we violate the open meetings provision if we don't have open meetings but we later we don't do it again once you tell us we're violating it we then go back and have open meetings we've cured the by a lesion and with the california court of appeals that is no you can't just cure the violation by stopping your closed meetings you have to go back and undo whatever the harm was caused by not having open meetings in the first place and similarly in terms of this there's another california it's a proposition i believe that has a requirement that before you  have to inform the government and they have to have an opportunity to intervene and there's a case called the physicians committee for responsible medicine and in that case the plaintiffs did not inform the government properly and they said well we can cure it because now we've notified the government and what the court said is no that's not a key here because the harm has already been done the government hasn't can't now go back and try to stop this lawsuit and so those two cases demonstrate under california law that the courts have interpreted the word cure to mean undoing the harm caused and ringing the bell truly being able to turn back example in this case the safe harbor provision has no application that's correct in this case because the vision is explicit it says you can cure violations that are able to be here which means that the legislator rect legislature recognized in passing the law that some violations would not be able to be cured and this is an example of one of those violations and that makes a lot of sense given the purpose of the rosendahl act which is to protect consumers from abusive debt collection so if you have violations for example misstatements is a good example where you can go back and correct them and not cause harm then it makes sense of the legislature might want those to be curable they might want to give banks and debt collectors an opportunity to fix those mistakes whereas violations that would cause harm that you question to the california supreme horn it's certainly one possibility and we think the business of the word cure is pretty universal in terms of a legal violation so we think that it's pretty clear what the what the california courts would do but it's certainly an option thank you and then the second issue that i want to discuss is briefly touch on the invasion of privacy question so the bank's argument is that as a matter of law there's no amount of unwanted calls that could constitute an invasion of privacy under california law but california has adopted the second restatement of torts which specifically says that there's liability for hounding someone with unwanted calls and that's exactly what happened here the banks called mr merrill hundreds of times against her will they often called her many times a day they called her after she repeatedly told them to stop they were interrupting her conversations disrupting her from what she was doing in a reasonable person could certainly find these calls constituted an invasion of privacy and in fact several reasonable people have judges across the country applying the standard have said that these kinds of this kind of claim has to go to a jury both congress and the california legislature have passed laws prohibiting these kinds of calls and these kinds of legislation legislation saying that particular conduct is an invasion of privacy and these a factor that the california supreme court has considered in determining whether the conduct is an invasion of privacy that's the shoaling case for example so so it can't just can't be that no matter how many times somebody calls you against your will that that's not an invasion of privacy that's just not with the receipt and says the statement says one or two or three times isn't an invasion of privacy this is well above that and so it's up to a jury to decide whether this with or hundreds of calls well above the few calls that the restatement excludes in this case  would constitute an invasion of privacy the district court viewed this as a series of one phone call correct was that argument vance by the banks below i actually do not know the answer to that question i don't remember in their briefing but whether that was an argument the district court itself have any of their courts treated these violations that way and view them as a series of single phone calls there are a few cards for purposes of standing that have under the t c p a that have done that they have i believe all of them though have still upheld standing that might not be true maybe a few citing the district court in this case have not but in any case if you're asking for the purpose of standing you know i'm not asking for a thought then paten i'm asking what are the purpose of the toward oh for the purpose of the tort i don't know of any case that has looked at for the purpose of invasion of privacy tort as looked at a single call you know isolation and it looks like there are not thank morning your honour's may please the court my name is chad silk or i represent the a police department stores national bank who is the issuer of the macy's credit card for which mr merrill became delinquent and f t s bank which is she updated her phone number called in just a few months before she became delinquent on this account and of course there's a certain period of time before the delinquency takes effect of course after a bell she updated her number to provide this cell phone number mouth is a bit in dispute she says i don't have the money to pay it she said please stop calling because i don't have money she didn't she if you look at in a c p a context of what is you know a revocation you know the a says that the f c c says it has to be a clear expression of the revocation and her statement was i don't have money please stop paying which puts it in the context of the of the collections in bank's rights to collect on the account because she's unable to pay at this moment but would that the circumstances could change not that she doesn't want to receive calls at all i wan question before we go on if i'm if i may say yes a different question and it's an important question what you're saying is that her her revocation wasn't equivocal and and list as you know i don't have money right now maybe she would next week but judge n a distinction between telemarketing and the collection calls and of course the collection collection calls contesting standing so i think we still contesting sense and that's a judge the team is asking yes yes we are still at this time contesting standing narrow there in the course of the court may disagree as a as applied to these facts but i do think that if you look at the congressional history the legislative history for the t c p a the focus was on the telemarketing and the scourge of receiving telemarketing calls these are not telemarketing calls that were made point without distinction ultimately i understand but certainly at least in the trial court's view that was distinction of much importance to her i grant you it's a distinction i think it's an important distinction that there was a creditor debtor relationship the money and that does seem to be disputed but she also said please stop calling and it sounds to me like if i'm understanding correctly going to the rosenthal act your team wants to take advantage of the safe harbor provision but your definition of the saying in response to her request that they stop to stop for five days is that right  or subsequent to this there's been more guidance from the f c c about what about revocation ok so today is your position that your client is entitled to take advantage of the safe harbor provision because it cured by stopping for five days actually the know it is the ability to pay but a clear intention to stop calls and of course at that point i think it's much in dispute the call records i'm for the previous two calls where she claims that she said something in her tummy for i told him i'm on able to pay so please stop calling that information is not reflected and course the testimony is not reflected in the record from the call records in the logs that are that are generated from those phone calls so the collectors testified that they would have recorded that had that information that requests been made is that a disputed fact in her testimony and the trial court looked at that and said it's not color she hasn't made a colorable allegation of revocation as to calls plain false or disputed i believe whether or not it leads to rodent stopping the calls for five days no i'm talking about stopping calls from the from the point of receiving written notice ok that's because there was no call from the written notice the first time you i mean here yes correct that was the cure the cure  occurred upon written upon the receipt of a written notice and within fifteen days of the notice ok so then getting back to us to see miss question because now i'm following you i think you're saying that by stopping at that point you cured that it had been a couple hundred phone calls is that correct  the statue refers to making a correction or adjustment to cure the violation it focuses on the defendant's conduct not on the result of the conduct and i think that's that's a common premise within a safe harbor like this the statute is this particular provision of the statute is intended to provide a safe harbor for for a collector from any liability under the statute and that applies here that the trial court looked at it and said yes that applies here where the call ceased upon written notice you know just in the the usual use of the term term your there's also  i think there could be an incurable violation one of those an example i think looking at the statute would be the statute has a provision that bars deadbeat lists so basically publication of lists of debtors once you put something if you put it in the local newspaper publish it for all to see that that's an example something to be incurable you can't walk that back now that particular statute also could be something that could be cured because if i were to post it outside my door one morning and ten minutes later take it off deadbeat list these people me money that i would have cured i would have cured that it hadn't we wouldn't have had a publication to the world that would be difficult to cure or what if you  ten calls in one day how can you possibly cure the harm that this is cause a person can't do but did the phone all during the day it's done that you're not going to do it if you're is wonderful but what about the past and i think that the statute the way the way the word cure is used in the statue refers to correcting or adjusting and so it doesn't focus on behavior as opposed to providing relief to the dead or there are other statutes of the debtor may have a claim on but it just wouldn't fall within the rosenthal claim could you answer the question i asked earlier about the tort claims and whether or not it was that argument was not one that was expressed it was it was looked at as was it was this behavior that it actually did it was there something more and the trial court said no when they're making a volume call volume argument there must be something more and the evidence is there was not anything more there wasn't any threat there were no threats there are no calling a family members late night calls things like that that other courts have said constitutes the something more all of this of course also you have a little time left on the clock i just want to address a few points that came up in the bank's argument the first is the evidence on the record on revocation and that's a disputed issue of fact and i can point you to the e r cites for the revocation  her declaration is at seventy five it also there's also evidence that in her declaration and in her notes that and in the call records i believe that the reason they stopped calling was eventually was actually not because of her final revocation but because she finally told them this is the wrong number stop calling me and that's the only reason they stopped calling is because there would be put in no in the record that it was the wrong number not even because she had told them to stop calling and previous to that we have her notes in her declaration saying that she told them to stop there's also a recording of the third call on which she says please stop calling me and don't you have it in your records that i've told you to stop calling before indicating so there's more than just her say that me finish please so his his his response is she owes us money and she's telling us she doesn't have money right now she can't a paper to pay right now what's wrong with calling next week that's that's his response did she give him did she give them other ways to contact her to collect the debt so she gave i mean so there are lots of ways you can collect a deck you can send a lot i can't is really is a specific so much for example i know that there's lots of ways to collect a debt i'm asking you whether she gave them other contact information i believe they had her address although i'm not i'm not one hundred percent sure of that but i believe they would have had her address and to the point of she told them i don't have money right now that's actually disputed what she told exactly the words were  and whether or not that's a clear cations one summary judgment that would have to be a disputed issue a fact that would go to the jury so that and the second point i just want to touch on briefly is this idea that there's a distinction between telemarketing and collection calls van patten says is that unsolicited contact is a concrete harm and that clear in the telephone communications protection act consumer protection act rather we go by what the text of the statute says in the text of that you're not really engaging with this argument his argument is it's different because he's not trying to sell you a blender right it was solicited because she has a better creditor relationship and she had given the phone number what's your response to that place their response to that is that she revoked her to the extent that she consented she revoked it and she did so explicitly and repeatedly and what congress found in the findings are unwanted robo calls are a concrete harm no matter the contact the content of the call no matter who is calling and so when she revoked her consent those were unwanted calls and that's a harm in that there's a long history right in the common law of these kinds of harms invasion of privacy nuisance so even without the telephone consumer protection act there still would be a concrete harm here which says after discovering a violation which is able to be cured if the debtor then makes whatever adjustments or corrections are necessary to cure it then they escape by ability so the fact that it says it says you can make adjustments or corrections to cure violations that are able to be cured so it doesn't help it doesn't support the position that all violations are able to be cured or that it means to stop the violation it just says whatever violations you can cure through just once or corrected corrections then you may do so and i think the use of the terms adjustments or corrections are actually support the argument that certain violations can't be cured things like violence things like harassing someone with unwanted phone calls because the things you think of as being able to adjust are correct are things like misstatements in a complaint or a letter you can't make any adjustments or corrections that would do the fact that you called someone hundreds of times against their will or punch them in the face an intent to collect a debt so those are still harms that cannot be undone regardless of whatever adjustments or corrections you me if there are no further questions i'm sure you are tell me one more time to have the correct amount and nothing bad happened from that so or if you sent a letter with a misstatement that said you know i'm an attorney for example i'm represented by an attorney and nothing happens as a result of that letter you realize it's a mistake and you go back and send a new letter that says i accidentally said that i was an attorney but i'm not and nothing bad has happened then you can hear it you've corrected it because there's no harm that's resulted from that you change the mistake in that case was there any allegation that there was emotional distress or harassment as a result of the misstated amount there was not as far as i know it's certainly not an engine to think well if there were if there were would that make it an incurable if there were it would be a it would be  a closer question i could see i think it would probably make it incurable because then you couldn't undo the harm but it is you know it's that's not the issue here i mean i think there are certain there are certain violations that