she faces a threatened injury that is certainly impending specifically the plaintiff must show a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wrong in a similar way that's not something that mister starr is going to be able to show hater of the order denying the arbitration motion and so it can be sent back to have that resolved you know we think it's pretty boring but since we no longer are involved in the practice that that is challenge that you was the holding that there is a live request for a public injunction now we don't think the injunction the public for the reasons explained in the brief a threshold question before you even get there is is there standing and that's a question that that's asked throughout  pursuing one ch'ien and therefore you know what would lead to a new conclusion on the  we don't think that mister starr can show that that there is something to enjoin going forward because of our lack of participation in this program we think this is clear from the davidson case davidson  operative complaint is tied directly to our blocks of participation in the in the i r s free file program that the complaint does refer and i should say one hundred and twenty five times at least so the quote unquote true free which is how my opponents have described our version of the iris free file program there are parts of the requests for injunction parts of the complaint that talk about what they characterize as the computing free service on enjoin or there might be but we don't know well i think i think to that point and i want to be fair to the other side of this development happens in june in june is when we announced to the public they filed their very shortly plants similarly situated so that individual and it's private relief not public release and so there has to be something more than the ordinary class action something that reaches the general public as a whole and if there is one thing we know are the only issue that was properly presented on this bill is the question of whether plaintiff is seeking a public injunction because so much time was spent on the move argument i would just like to  not been tested and they did just bring it up in their reply brief even on this appeal all of that is contrary to numerous presence of the court in terms of issues to be considered and decided so the only way i do not think that decision that issue can be resolved in appellants favor for those reasons however it is possible that the court could reject that argument as a dead end that is even assuming that that offer free filing knowing that they still aggressively market free filing trying to draw as many people to their website as possible we call it a bait and switch regardless of whether people actually qualify in the end for h r block's limited free file offer either the commercial version or their version of the i r s free file offer which we call the true free offer there are people who are still being misled and pulled in i mean sense of that is to get them to spend time entering the system and begin entering their information the other aspect of being sent to police is to make sure that defendants not only stop with that misleading marketing and make sure that they're much more basically and would have no idea how they're going to operate when there is no  percent of the taxpayers who are eligible for that i rest free file for many people know that free filing exists and is valuable and that they probably qualify and so they can be misled into coming to the h r law website those people are still affected they may still start entering information and becoming h and r block customers or fill out an account and go so far down the road before they were that this is not the offer i was looking for and that remains true even if they have to pay but that is a little bit different from the public injunction going forward which has a has much broader fact  moreover defendants have shown little authors at the same time they've done it with two free filing offers they do it with various paid offers  so it's very much clear that defendants canet any point offer something take it away and repeat their activity there is absolutely no assurance or barrier to that continuing to do something very similar if not the same thing in the future going to the the what i consider that the merits on the main issue on this appeal i would like to emphasize just how extreme and dangerous opponents position is with respect to what constitutes a public injunction under their theory prohibiting tobacco companies from targeting children would not qualify as a public consumption because it would be protecting primarily children in order and forcing the rights of disabled citizens would not be for the benefit of everyone in the general public and order something discrimination on the basis of race or gender or religion would not be a public injunction defendants can always argue that in junction will come early benefits some subset of the population that of course isn't on reasonable and self serving you have what it needs to benefit the general public but the critical point is that this is not just about language an academic dispute about terms if opponents have their way think companies can completely eliminate these forms of relief and a consumer cannot pursue or request much an injunction either in court or from an arbitrator because under california law a consumer cannot we have the right to a public injunction but if these types of or not public injunctions i statutes is primarily for the benefit of the general public in fact employer the common argued that an order requiring the defendant to stop engaging in unlawful pricing practices targeting a low level was not a public injunction and the court rejected prompt disclosures to consumers about their eligibility for free filing defendant suggests that is limited to a small group of their customers but that is not true st of all even if injunctive relief was paragraphs three we are concerned with their broad marketing practices affecting the public and misleading people who are entitled to and who are seeking free filing these are the consumers on the i believe there are at least a few factors that go into deciding in a particular case whether relief is public or private i do not believe that distinguishing public and private injunctions is capable of specificity with precision but i do believe if you think about the distinction between a limited set of people in a dabbler strip existing or paid contractual relationship and which occurs in a few days where companies might impose charges or misuse information of existing paying account holders that would be a factor in favor of finding up five injunction versus public as compared to broad marketing or public websites of the kind of issue here which favors a finding that it's public we're going to you know follow it's directives that the plan this year would say that we haven't been i disagree with that i think we've been in compliance with the memorandum of understanding but it is it is not something within our control you know we are not solely able to  that require the approval of the executive director of the free alliance that would presumably get input from our competitors who may or may not want us back in and so i don't think there is you know a response about question even opposed to a foregone conclusion by the opposite i think there are serious doubts at it that we could resume doing them and i think that really underscores the need to get have the just report consider evidence on th