practices act commonly known as the c p a which was codified by congress in ten thousand and seventy seven to regulate the interaction between consumers and debt collectors we know that by the express terms of the statute as well as supreme court precedent identified both by the th circuit it can be one the act or process of selecting or two versus something selected and the rd circuit chose definition to something selected and look at the businesses overall purpose versus the action but looking a business is looking to generate a profit or revenue if it didn't in the business of course would fail and it would shut its doors but here the statute based on the definition of collection compels this court it means of verbs and the principal purpose only uses a noun but they provide only other further explanation as to how they respect inclusion or they provide no basis as to why they chose something collective version versus the regularly collected version using that term here the purpose is to regulate the election practices between rd parties deselect years and if you use that term election throughout the balance of the statute every other time the word black or collection is used or the deriv it something collected and we submit that it is actually action so merely contracting with a rd party is not is not interaction with consumers the gov is designed or was codified to govern interaction with consumers and here by contracting with a rd party there's no interaction with consumers and the consumer is not harmed under that analysis because the f t c a governs the collection efforts made by those rd parties but more importantly judge if you look at that's not what happened in the th circuit and i heard this court to look at the legislative history because if we look at the legislative history it shows that that buyer was not subject was not designed to be subject to this particular statute the purpose of the bill  there must be interaction with the consumer for there to be ultimately a violation of the f t c ph the question is who can be held liable for conduct that is in violation of fact that interaction and  and the reason why this case is slightly different than the makah dory otto case is because of the nature of the violation here and this goes to the nd question on appeal is that radius there is no dispute did not have the optimal knowledge of mr a goddess is represented status so therefore there could not be the elements of the violation because it did not have the knowledge of the represented status whereas involved here in the district court like the two courts of appeals were quick to find a business whose dominant objective is debt collection activity whether teach that goal itself or by hiring rd party agents as a principal purpose of debt collection the distinction and focus on the meanings of the of the two different definitions of collection is really unnecessary even assum gonna which which ones wouldn't be any one that does not have a principal purpose of collecting so for example many many buyers of junk bonds repackage and sell tho the majority is actually cut the majority of the business is collecting that yes they would be a debt collector under this definition and they would have been for the past fifty years let me  of another debt collector in various situations the question is whether the agency test has been met in the particular situation here we believe that the district court agreed that general principles of agency call make directly liable for a violation of the f t c p a which is here making contact with a party that is known to be represented by counsel that would not mean that every debt that they purchase by its very nature achieved directly or indirectly so if you have a purpose you know feeding the hungry you can achieve that purpose by giving money to a soup kitchen which would be indirectly were by yourself you know there's nothing inherent about a purpose that means you have to achieve your purpose directly whereas kalat which is the bird in the regularly collapse provision there could be a reading of that would say that you have to do it directly unless they specify that indirectly or directly so i think a purpose by its very nature is something that is achieved oh but wait a is directly or indirectly and so there's no reason to presume that you only achieve a debt i think either way my client can prevail because if you have a purpose of the activity of debt collecting that does not mean you do it directly yourself if you have a purpose of accumulating debt and so if that's their goal at the end of the day someone has to collect that debt and that is what a purpose it and so their purpose is debt collection and notably this is not a case where they pointed to anything in the record you know did not have any evidence suggesting they do anything else so that's clearly their principal purpose as well indeed it's their only purpose as i believe you recognized earlier one point i want to make the reference to a question that t is here the issue of whether or not suing itself in courts in arkansas is debt collection activities of the sort that makes the rest of this analysis kind of drop away and there is support for that in the hundreds st jenkins case in the supreme court where the court said it lawsuits are debt collection activity and obviously that companies in those cases are or are represented by their legal entity that's filing lawsuits is a is that is that that biedermann this case and businesses are the rockwell regulated as debt collectors and businesses through people they act or either their employees or someone else in some sort of agency relationship so it doesn't matter and and it certainly is not contrary to the statute for d n a have to be held liable whether it's hires someone at their going to different aspects of how you can conceptualize a business one way is the things that the business itself actually does and one is the business's goals consolo this court has said pretty clearly that circuit case law that was relied upon and citing that has been reversed that was all based on the default test which said that if you buy debt once it's in default you can still be a fall under the regular collects definition is opinion got rid of that basis so since there's been no actual holding of this court saying that you the categories are mutually exclusive and no court has held for any reason other than  some of the case law that discussed that focused on how the regularly collects definition explicitly applies only to debts owed to another so in that sense there is a difference between the creditor and the debtor however this provision the principal activity by the lawyers that bring them not the parties that they've been retained to represent and lawyers are governed in subject to the that was the amendment that was made by congress in eighty six again congress recognizing that the schedule needed to be changed in order to accor the lawyers the other point i wanted to make was that during mr paul there was arguing about the c p s only triggered when there was an attempt by some when the class or they're engaged in activities that violates the statute those are all action they require something done and go and look at the legislative history because if it is ambiguous as to which definition of collection needs to be applied i think judge bay has a roadmap and a legislative intent all point that would supposed to happen is that they're supposed to be affirmative conduct for