st because they were about and are not at risk of future injury or deception nd because their purchase decisions do not depend on the injunctive relief or label disclosures that they are seeking and rd because the injury they claim is speculative or remote not certainly impending or imminent as is required to establish standing ago through each of those one by one st with regard to coke is artificially derived that off for acid as a target taste to coke which balances the sweetness of the beverage and then the buzz for acid lowers the h or raises the acidity level of the beverage which makes it less hospitable to grow the microorganisms or spoilage all of that is known to these plaintiffs and it's not in dispute between the parties the only dispute with any new what information or prevent them from being deceived in the future they say their injury is they don't like being lied to they think that that's how i read the briefing right that there's these two stages that that being green it is not hidden and it's listed and then there's this representation about whether that ingredient has certain characteristics and they think that's inconsistent right but what the ingredient is or does and if they've been lied to what's your response to them i think that's a fair description of what they are claiming your honor but when a consumer learns of a purported deception and knows that nothing is ever going to change which would make it such that they  thoughts for a guest who purportedly qualifies as an artificial flavor and as a preservative so that's the old it says the contrary right planets would say it says the contrary that's why they say they like to write and it's not right yes but affirmative statement no artificial flavors no preservatives and since eight hundred and eighty six dollars what we call the pemberton claim after the inventor of coke so we're dealing with both kinds of misrepresentations or omissions the problem though is that in the situation that we're in where the product is static the ingredient list is static and there's no prospect whatsoever of any kind of a change that impacts these facts i mean this is coke it's been around for a one hundred and thirty five years and it's always time off for gas in it and that was for acid has always done the same things they can't possibly be deceived or injured again in the future and it's quite product said so and then said well if i encounter this product in the future how am i ever going to know whether it's now been made flushable or alternatively whether the manufacturer is still lying to me there's no way i can figure that out unless the court issues an injunction a prohibited further misrepresentations about the product here these pointers know everything they could possibly want to know about coke they believe the cause for acid is qualifies from a regulatory standpoint as an artificial flavor and preservative and if they don't want to drink that contain those ingredients they don't have to buy the product but they're not being deprived know in the davidson decision the panel referenced the fact that there would be an anomaly in the panel's view if the primary remedy available under california state law which is an injunction were not available to a previously disease consumer and where no i want to be very clear that we are not taking the position that the defendant david's and again and which is the law in the nd and several other circuits that a previously deceived consumer and never have standing were simply saying that on the backs of this case where the plaintiff already knows everything they could possibly know or want to know they have no risk of huge or injury and your hon we're dealing here with the united states constitution and its standing requirements which simply must from any state law interest in providing standing to individual consumers but the reason i was trying to s lawsuit if there's something i understand that's what we are and it's my it is a very discreet problem and they've got two other major problems with standing that the game isn't plaintiff did not have number one in this case the plaintiffs all admit that they're actually not really even interested in whether or not code contains artificial flavors or preservatives in terms of major making purchasing decisions they would just like to know that it's properly labeled so they're not looking for information like the davidson plaintiff was is this possible or not to make an actual purchase or interesting decision as if that is part of that already are you baking in the record which i think is that they would consider buying if it was real it label the way they think it should consider as it forgive me  they would consider buying coke if it was labeled the way they think it should be as opposed to committing that they would in fact i have yes your honor there are two there are two issues with the consider one is that as i was saying all they're looking for they're not looking for a change like the removal of artificial flavors or preservatives which would be akin to what the davidson planet was looking for and actually a different product they're looking for a label that says what they already believe to be true the nd part is that consider is simply concern would consider isn't good enough to establish certainly impending or him in an injury and actually this court in a case but was decided after davidson by a couple of months a lot of laws he's dealt with exactly the situation where the point of said that he or he would consider purchasing the product if it were able to conform to his label representations and the court said that's not an imminent injury under supreme court in our case law so for all three of those reasons these plaintiffs lack standing as want to say a couple of quick words on commonality which is our other issue for reversal in this case the plaintiffs were required to come forward with some evidence from which the court could conclude that they could prove their class w claims of injury reliance the materiality with common evidence common to all the plaintiffs all the absent class members i should say they did not do that here they came forward with absolutely no such evidence and the district dollars if the end if all the evidence is that ninety five to ninety eight percent of absent class members don't care about this issue which by the way is intuitively correct most consumers aren't really concerned about and their concern wasn't just that the label wasn't accurate at the beginning and leave aside the change in their their problem was that they needed to know whether what they were buying was the product they wanted the washable be here that the as i understand the allegations the artificial flavors or any chemical reserves in the auto number of things how much will they buy how often are they going to buy for whom were they going to buy it it's a much more complex taxonomy that any normal consumer with this sort of problem is going to go through so for example one of the points of the plaintiffs is the court is where i've continued on occasion to either buy or consume coke or in one case purchased for their children but what they were deprived of as we sit here today is adequate sense to spend her money on the problem and this court really sided jumba juice in reason for that proposition so where the injury to the point if occurs and respectfully i think this is what the defendants are missing is not some sort of academic  interest in whether or not it complies with the a regulations is being able to rely on the representations going forward having been lied to previously and the naming to have an adequate transparency on the label so that they can make the in the mornings the problem was that the plaintiffs in that case had given a interop a tory answer that is best as one can tell from the decision simply said i would consider without providing the slightest bit of insight as to what would go into that consideration and more my understanding and that is the rest of the even the you know i would consider it what they would consider buying it was properly label they don't say i will i will this sometimes now that i know what's in it i won't buy it at all the i would buy it if it's properly labeled know what so they don't seem to be hearing about what's actually in it they only care about the label following that it seems to me you've made a statement about they they they they say they would buy it if it's appropriate or labelled and i'm really concerned about that as well as i read the record they say they would consider buying it if it was appropriate labelled and i and i want to hear your answer to that but i don't understand why it matters whether they would consider and they would need to make decisions about how much to buy and for whom they would buy and why does why does that change the standing analysis the reason to change each of the planes as your has standing under article thre acid is in fact an artificial flavor or chemical preserve because they don't know that right now you're on right now all they know is what their lawyers have you know concluded nor own investigation and davidso makes clear that just because the plaintive knows it now believes that it was overrated in the past is not there for mean that they lack standing so the kind of consumer decisions i'm talking about are not simply binary they will never buy it a ll or they will always buy it anyway in normal consumer behavior if for example i know that in fact there's phosphor that forsberg acid is turning to be a chemical preservative or an artificial flavor i may buy half of that i may see  a minimum coca cola is not going to come out in the future and put on something similar to the pemberton claim that says no artificial flavors no chemical preservatives no matter what's in the product it's not just the sheer interest in abstract label  anyone reading but with respect to all of them and that's why in more quote quoting the quips that this court said labels matter and labels matter a multiple respects and as i've tried to hopefully enunciate they matter much more than simply will i buy the product at but it is not a necessary condition that is only coca cola's decision and if it chooses to keep that ingredient in this product then it's got to be completely honest about it in all other ingredients all that matters is that the label i lastly i would like to also touch upon mr sol's comments with respect to commonality that i think you hit the nail directly on the head that is entirely a merits related issue i appreciate defens efforts to spin their own of that his decision in that regard was entirely the logical flaws of all are found absolutely no basis in the record and i respectfully submit none of those three standards would be to be addressed with that i see that my time is up but i'm happy to the davids into the to the possibility of a change of product in the sense that there is an interest in continuing interest in the accuracy of the label  the only and the only one issue here is us or as it so again it is not there is not going to be an injunction in this case under any circumstances that says the coke can never make a misrepresentation on its label course we don't flavor on the other hand and that's what the that's what the f d a regulation marriage dispute is about but there's no contention in this case other than what was flung in on appeal that maybe one of the natural flavors isn't really  because it affects taste and like salt or sugar or aspartame it's not a flavor even though thanks a's and that's what the case is actually about but the injunction they would get would not address the problem  blatter and your are referring to which is what if there's some other misrepresentation that no one knows about yet that's not what this case is about it wasn't with davidson or any of these cases are about the question is whether the injunction s there there's never been an allegation in this case that any ingredion coke other than phosphor acid is mislabeled or qualifies as either one in the other one of those categories artificial flavors or even know how to answer that question but it's not what the litigation what this case is about not what's not what discovery is about it's not what these plaintiffs have claimed and although you're correct that the words that they