get to those issues i have a question about subject matter jurisdiction i don't see any allegation of concrete injury there's no claim that the statements harmed the plaintiffs credit rating that they paid anything they didn't go and so on and so given the supreme court's decision in spokeo and this circuit's decision in discuss jurisdiction in every case and that didn't happen didn't happen for your side didn't happen for convergence the district judge didn't mention it but it's an obligation and so here we are yes i understand your point where i think we did address it to the extent that we we i'm going on how the i r s language is the type of language that instills fear in people more so than the typical gives you people may gives thirty no no what is there any concrete harm did something happen like the payment of a debt not all that you instill fear in you get them to pay what they don't owe i don't see any such allegation it can't work oh my client was offered to make a payment that she could only afford when she was on disability which would have been a five dollars a month payment which was provoked by this letters that caused yes the claim that somebody would have to be paying would have to incur eight hundred and ninety nine dollars c liability when that in fact is not the case is a mint early false was not provided by that letter here it's different that the debt collector is including language that is completely unnecessary under the act so narrow which is then creating a false and misleading statement you're going beyond that  problem i do i do and i know there was a violation of the statute therefore i don't have to show injury the injury is too if the point is this your honor that if my client had paid this debt because of insurer had there might be injury but it should get me that she didn't read what i'm trying to reconcile with that is the fact that there were other class members that did pay that under then they might be the appropriate representatives of the class but we have to determine whether there was standing by the asserted class representative not by somebody else in a lawsuit filed by somebody who wasn't injured and there lies the issue that i was going to mention with the keel vs webster case the court has has held that the plaintiff does not have to suffer the exact same injury as the people of that they seek to represent where in a debt collection scenario heal versus watch the argued that she could represent people who had paid the debt because she had not paid the debt herself in this you are have no case in either the supreme court or the th circuit who suffered the debt of injury i'm asking whether it is possible to represent a class if you have not suffered any injury at all the i understand the question clearly i do disagree though that she hasn't suffered the injury based upon that false material misstatement because it was talking just let me let me ask the question from a slightly different perspective it's getting at the same issue sure ok and it may be coming out that way you'll have you'll have something to offer on it maybe not ok i focused on the same question coming into oral argument in one way i focused on it was by looking at your client's deposition testimony and her deposition testimony she does two things that at least came across to me one is that she is she definitely testimony the other thing that she does is when asked about harm questions akin to what judge easterbrook is asking for purposes of article three standing what she says is she felt intimidated is there any is does does feeling intimidated rise to the level or is it adequate to satisfy the i understand that your honor it did discuss though if here because that was or did and heredia didn't mention kosovo's right there there's always a problem when the litigants as in this case pay no attention to comply with the law from losing out on business opportunities to other top collectors that they were not going back to the argument that if the defendant violated the law then there can be a suit without any other proof of injury and it engages who is concerned enough to engage a lawyer to file a lawsuit has standing then the standing doctrine has been completely abolished because all of the suits where the supreme court found no standing were filed by lawyers after plaintiffs were concerned enough to consult counsel if i may i know my time is up i'd like to address the rest that your time is i'll give you two minutes for rebuttal thank you very much your honor mr foster that the district court found and ruled in summary judgment was the plaintiff's reluctance and failure to present extrinsic evidence regarding the letter and that was the sound of excess and its mysteries dr i'm sure you can tell but that's not the court's principle and we need to figure that we did not raise that earlier i would agree with your position that there probably isn't there isn't standing for there was no concrete harm here and if i may terms of apologizing why we didn't raise it is it is in part because we we felt that the there wasn't there wasn't a there was a good precedent for us to make it clear to the district court that this was a frivolous claim that there was no injury we don't conquer it is supreme court decision and spok in our decision and sell us off for a reason basis for contesting standing in this case it does your honor it doesn't and it was it was our miscalculation regarding the clarity of that and whether or not they'll be persuasive to a district court judge on a motion to dismiss in this case we focused on the merits and going through with it that they have that is there is no mistake on our part and we apologize let's go through what was articulated by the player how about the statement i was confused by this letter is that a concrete injury and no it's not your honor why because it's it amounts to a emotional hyperbole and it's not based upon anything concrete i understand there may be as a conventional thought that feelings are real things and that that that ought to be but that's not actually something that's concrete upon which to base a claim or your however on a minute here hold on hold on she she when you look at her deposition testimony i think at a minimum you can say she absolutely did not understand the  and ninety nine dollars c notice she just did not understand what the words meant to the extent that she did have an understanding it was most confused i think that's the fairest object of reading and so the question is do you need more for injury you know we we know from all the precedent judge easterbrook talking about injury has to be concrete it has to be particularized to has to be actual imminent are those standards satisfied and no i don't i don't police of your honor of my recollection of her deposition testimony was that she understood that the particular statement at hand did not appl her for she understood the letter and her contention was that she did understand why the that statement was ever part of the letter presumably she didn't bother to read the rest of the letter that invited her to to  contact the contact our client to see what other terms can be worked out on the account which is an invitation for if someone cannot take advantage of a fifty percent discount if they need a six thousand and seventy percent discount there's an invitation in the letter to have that call confusion and idiosyncratic interpretation most people looking at even the plainest provision of the internal revenue code itself feel confusion bernard had once said that when he looked at the code the words just danced before his eyes and didn't convey any meaning so you have somebody who's an on lawyer who looks at some legal language and says i'm confused are you denying that that's real wonder that certainly confusion can and can arise the question is is it is it is it reasonable confusion based upon the language that is there or is it confusion about the law the law and so understandably the internal revenue service c confusion would be a concrete injury is that a question that the supreme court has addressed one way or the other in spokane it has your honor you think spoke a overdress confusion is an injury apologize i mean you can you all can take a look at that it's up to judges you can take a look at the deposition testimony but i mean it's as plain as day she didn't understand that notice so that it's that the legal question is do you need more she had no idea what it meant offering to settle this for under six hundred dollars but yet there's this notice about i r s reporting that's not triggered until this gets to six hundred so i don't know what this means that they're offering something under but they're talking about reporting something to the dunbar case that will made does not mean will in this case the this is a statement that is literally true and under the objective and sophistic consumer test is is not misleading and so therefore the plaintiff getting back to summary judgment didn't provide the extremes of evidence needed under this circuit's jurisdiction to to withstand the motion for summary judgment because while argand's could be made whether was there confusion or not in this particular case as wasn't presented because our position would be that the letters clearly not misleading plaintiff's position is that the letter clearly is misleading middle ground is that it could be and if it's in that middle category extrinsic evidence is needed no exte was given we have we have a basis for some real judgments like the merits of whether it was misleading or not rather than whether there was injury or not to have not addressed your question directly mere confusion is not is not sufficient for the concrete concrete injury because it's the only evidence of that is going to be self serving testimony about why i was is so what plaintiffs in gauge and self serving testimony all the time i was run down on the street and suffered a broken leg self serving testimony it's perfectly fine to show injury it to allege injury absolutely your honor and our point is that while my focus has been on the summary judgment of the moment to put up or shut up and the play didn't do that i understand the court's interest in trying to determine was there enough here alleged to to to actual state an actual claim and i would agree with your with the position that there wasn't enough here for a concrete injury but i apologize we did not breach that is your motion to dismiss in terms of trying to  trying to develop that that that line of attack because we focused on the merits of the case you have to read the letters a whole year honor and the invitation on the letter invites the debtor to contact to work out other arrangements which is invitation for for debt relief that's larger it also is the case that this is a case that fits wide something salena fitted to the scenario handled by the in the rhone versus allegiance one case southern district of indiana two thousand and fifteen where you have the amount of the debt piece information and then this particular language it puts all the information into the hands of a bit of pressure to pay this you know out of concern that if i pay it there's no way the i r s is after me i just can't i don't understand for the life of me why it's on a notice where the total debt owed is under six hundred dollars my time is not concern this brunette it concerns and it concerns me to some members of the class whose total debt was under six hundred dollars number last got a notice that could never conceivably have applied to them isn't that a problem if you if you miss if you interpret the word may to mean will then yes it could be a problem but they planned the and so different language is not triggered i'm sorry i'm sorry i couldn't hear you ok thank you very much  informational injury is not enough where somebody puts language on the letter that was out doesn't belong there and that collectors in this case could have excluded this language from debts of less than one thousand two hundred and clearly less than six hundred it had an impact on people which is what i don't think the supreme court is directly spoken on a boat you know case for the purpose of the f c c p a to protect consumers from huge and from fear from all of those things and here i believe one point i was trying to convey is that this isn't a lawyer manufactured lawsuit where we look at all what is your own need or what does and a mean this is a person who was counsel for both sides to file within fourteen days memoranda addressing the question whether we have subject matter touristic those memoranda should at a minimum address the supreme court's decision in full and spoke and our decision and selous as well as any other decisions and any factual considerations that counsel believes are relevant to the existence of subject matter and once we receive those memos the case will be taken under advisement thank you very much