your honor mentioned there is some overlap in the issues presented in this would kill the prior matter involving the brazil consumer the court of the question for the court is what is required under the f issue this case does come to the court on a different procedural posture there is a developed record in the district court so we are not merely questioning whether this poolers used the right language  confer standing under article three instead we are actually looking at what happened in discovery and what was set forth in opposition to our motion for summary judgment recall that you needed three affidavit to the district court two in support of their motion for class certification and one in opposition to our motion for summary judgment one of those affidavits spoke to any type of injury or harm they didn't speak to any lack of information in the challenge letter or that the spill was would somehow approach payment of the debt differently or that they may or may not have contacted state collection and some others before richard ben included and likewise we took depositions of both of the spooler and neither one of them was able to articulate frankly claims the basic may have failed in an effort to show injury in fact in one case wouldn't necessarily mean in some other case filed in a different time different people somebody else might be able to show the kind of effect on decision making or for all i know a different type of concrete injury so your argument i take it is specific to the facts of this case the answer that question is is nothing play in terms of any injury or i am pleading with all of them to summary judgment my it's my point only is that a failure to plead is sufficient grounds to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but with evidence right there maybe a rd stage at the twelve the one hearing if there is one we're now at the summary judgment stage so what was in the complaint can't really be conclusi and i think your point your honor yes that what we're looking at now the operative issue on this appeal is that summary judgment and my point is that no on the facts of this case we do not have going to have that demonstrated standing there's not anything in the record from which they could make that showing they failed to do that and that's a basis to reverse the district court and a very fictional basis regarding the f t c ph requirement of disclosing the amount of debt  a fundamental premise of a credit based economy that failure to pay or maintaining an unpaid balance of any type one consequence flowing from that is the potential that the balance may go up you know to be a crew of interest certainly any consumer that is capable of incurring that type of obligation and being held responsible to repay it but i understand that and our position all of that may be true it's in some tension with what ms clinton was saying the previous argument that when the when these busy all got the letter saying ninety two dollars and some she had no reason to think that the that there was any interest accruing at all so why doesn't sol disclosure include at least some you know interest is going to accrue on this obligation or interest is not going to accrue on this obligation just a sentence maybe not even all the bells and whistles that miller was talking about because people will don't know when or how much interest will be and of course the instances that bankruptcy judges are experienced with this where the interest rates are so high that what starts out as you know one thousand dollars obligation balloons up into many times that as eighteen to twenty percent interest compounds over and over again so yes it's a credit economy but surely it's important that disclosures be made in a way that people understand would have motivated mr spooler to do anything different from what he was doing hadn't even seen the letter until the deposition he didn't know what it said and i mean it seems like it was utterly beside the point to him and surely that doesn't about that where a consumer receives a collection and in that particular case had not even read the letter but nevertheless is always his claim was only for statutory damages has some actual injury actual or imminent i mean there are a lot of other phrases you can put around it but a real injury and just the record summary judgment record leave any isn't going to be one hundred percent of the set of procedural violations but i mean i'm sure lots of us you know every day see things that look like violations of the law and as somebody who pays a lot of attention is a lot of annoying to me to see people do that but i can't just sue because i see a violation yeah but the difference is not that you saw a violation difference is that there was a breach of a duty the statue created on this debt collector that it owed to disk consumer and this sounds exactly like what the th circuit said in spokane show that if there's a violation of a legal right then they're standing and it is of course exactly what the supreme court rejected and said there needs to be some concrete particularized person specific injury so instead of just standing on there's a violation so they're standing could you articulate  pretty concrete injury in this case given that it's a summary judgment record the plaintiffs seem to have said there's nothing in this letter that matters  injury could you explain to me what the concrete injury suffered by these plaintiffs is on this summary judgment record it's the supreme court and spoke you know no counsel i'm not asking you the counsel listen to the question i am not asking you what the supreme court said in spok am asking you to explain what concrete injury these plaintiffs suffered as demonstrated in the summary judgment record a hit because of a bad decision i don't know i'm not making any rulings here but that these are the kinds of specific things that could happen to somebody who is in the middle of getting done by a bill collector and not being told the correct things in the letter that the bill correct collectors  n as a result of these letters that's that's the information and then the lack of disclosure in these letters complicated her task of undertaking this investigation and therefore acquired expend standard is the unsophisticated consumer it doesn't matter for purposes of liability how the plaintiffs response to it and we are position is spokeo specifically talks about that the ha of claims were similar and and also giving deference to congress ability to elevate two to giving rights that didn't previously exist and our position is that this is regarding how the crew of interest or disclosure or lack thereof regarding interests impacted her in any way shape or form those depositions were quite remarkable in that opposing counsel either objected to a number of our inquiries during that deposition on the grounds of privilege basically instructing their client not to answer these questions and when finally pin down on a question would answer that they had no personal knowledge on any of these topics so it is it is remarkable to me that the position of the afa we hear is that in a school where articulated a concrete injury and back in the distinguishing factor from a view we disagree that this perceived problem the hypothetical that mr stern gave was that you could have a fifty dollars debt and then zero dollars forty nine cents could accrue between the time the consumer received the letter and then actually tase and then that could the lumen to some other debt that is sold or continue to be collected on we don't have those facts in this case it is pure speculation that that is what would happen in someone familiar with the collection industry be very surprising to me to learn that that is something that actually happened but does not make business sense for the collector would continue to chase the zero dollars forty nine cents when presumably it one thousand other accounts worth the fifty dollars that need to be collected on collectors by their nature are quite good at finding the money so it doesn't make sense that they would chase that forty nine cents likewise i do think pursuant to certain state laws we don't have this in this case necessarily but if a consumer received a letter that said fifty dollars and then paid the fifty dollars they may have an argument that they've satisfied the debt all right i think we're going to leave it there mr newman but thank you for your argument thank you mr stern thank you everybody we will take the case under advisement and the court will be in recess