letters and if the consumer had never done business with the company identifying itself who are capital owners and moved and i don't space appears to be an acronym it's not an intelligible word standing on its own and it looks like any other acron that a consumer would come in ordinary like well i'm not you know this is our challenge right our view is objective clarity we're looking to determine what the whether that those four letters that that  word worship meets that standard or not and i guess my question goes to how much of our creditors name is necessary there's been discussion whether amex or city is enough and then obviously there's differing arguments between the parties whether or not emma and i is enough if we don't consider it to be an acronym but whether we consider to be a portion of a word what is opponents argument here with regard to why that's insufficient under the to interject mr brown i mean i going to take it even further than judge brennan just did suppose that it just said creditor delta you know and she looks at it and she thinks delta you know i don't recognize anything of that sort maybe she doesn't recognize am oh and i either but the statute has a procedure for someone who's not sure who they're being told they owe money to which is to contact southwest credit and say tell me more about m o and i or tell me more about delta so your argument has to be that the cut that the debtor needs to be able to look at whoever is written down under a creditor and say oh yeah i remember you know i had an account with monitronics m o and i might be that or you know i have a macy's account and maybe they're just misspelling macy's you know or something so why is it that the credit that the debtor has to understand that word rather than just if the debtor happens to be i'm sure they go through the verification process well that reason was there were by this order in the president understand is that i mean ok i understand that somebody is being told you owe money to m o n i i may disagree with that better but i don't know i don't know whether it's a lack of understanding or a lack of of a sense that oh yeah you know i used to have an account with that and whether that's what needs to be triggered well again it's not so much what is what is actually triggered in the consumer's mind because we view it through the interactive standard only of the unsophisticated and so look at an unsophisticated consumer standing in the shoes of miss miller what that unsophisticated consumer be likely to understand what i am referring to or not company's brand name for decades and when the consumer had a relationship with that company referred to itself as don't and the consumer understands that they'll tell you is the person to make money in their own money in this context b name in all of those cases when the consumer was doing business with that company that was how they referred to them there was no subsequent name change of the expected citroen and then you combine that with the fact that  in again it's wicker stricklin in both the companies were american express capital one and sprint these are all large national companies that have been branded that way for decades and they've been putting that branding out to consumers and magazines television television commercials billboards internet advertising for decades here by conference monitronics is not nearly that large of a company and the name change to m o n i lasted for only sixteen months before the company abandoned that branding strategy and instead was going into the new name of security good to respect a consumer who had terminated their relationship two years prior to be tricking you involving branding one of their minor creditors and that branding team is literally in dozens of months it's simply on reasonable in the case like that again that this is supposed to be presented in a way that the so i actually really did need to check i think sixteen not exactly requires that the debt collection agency clearly identify the creditor and then i can i think as i think you would concede that where the creditor line appears on this stunning letter in principle it ought to reveal somebody that the consumer realizes that she once upon a time had a relationship with or could it be just a totally random placeholder name you are it cannot be a totally random play phone or holder and i think it does have to be a name that has a relationship and some form there is not a law that says that a company you would had that debt with the humble oil and refining company and then you got a letter saying creditor exxon years later you know you've closed the account down you never had a relationship while they were known as exxon and actually when they changed the name they did a very comprehensive search to make sure that it was just a nonsense word that it wasn't going to violate anybody's copyright know all the rest of that so it's death it's by design a meaningless word do you think the that the debtor or the unsophisticated debtor would look at the word exxon and think oh i know you know i read the financial times in the wall street journal every day i remember one humble change their name over to exxon i doubt it your honor i don't disagree but the f t c p a actually has a provision a section that was actually cited in this letter that specifically says if you're on clears too that the creditor is contact us and we'll give that information but to do that in my running back and that that was my st question but it takes me back isn't there doesn't the law require this letter to like trigger a brainwave in the debtor to the account but they didn't change the name until after she was done with them that is true your honor but again although all requires that you to clearly identify the creditor at the time the letter was sent out face which is the point the point is whether or not that would give the consumer information to identify who who is claiming that money is owed to them in this case it was money and to give them the statutory provisions that would allow them to question it if they were unclear as to the creditor what but if you're going to my lawyer and that they could put top in or something they could put in anything any nonsense word and just say well if you don't recognize that there's going touch with this no your honor if you remember what i'm saying is that they put the actual name of the creditor at that time so money was the name that monitronics was using at the time that the letter was being sent out and into that in your honor if you will recall in the record s less than twenty days after this letter went out miss miller's attorney actually sent a letter to my client and they didn't say we don't know who this creditor is all they says is we can't pay this debt right now and we think that that amount is incorrect words that effect i didn't quote it exactly my point being that the credit that they're turning within twenty days of receiving this letter does not say i don't recognize this debtor at all i think that judge palmer's opinion is exactly the correct stance to take here because what she said is on the face the letter is not confusing there are a lot of folks unsophisticated debtors who would recognize monye as their creditor what she said well you are out of that's the point she says on its face it's not computing if it could potentially be confusing that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce evidence of an exchange that nature to go back is that once we've shown the letters have the opportunity ring for that evidence they did not your honor today if they simply never brought anything other than her own statement which is the court knows is not enough to show what is not sophisticated because there would be if it is a clearly written statement there is nothing that is unclear about who the name of the creditor is is that money if she wants to say it is confusing that was incumbent upon them to bring evidence to that effect they did not your honor and that's why it's just such a different situation yes  the answer to judge wood's question is yes that that the name has to trigger some kind of recollection if the plaintiffs it's not your argument this is the point i'm making i want you to respond to it that and if the  plaintiff says i don't have any idea i don't know who x y z company is i don't have a clue that way that your point is well all right if that's confusing to you in one way or another and you can't recognize the creditor all about misleading communications confusing or misleading false confusing misleading and so what i what i thought about six thousand and ninety two dollars g was and maybe i'm wrong that would be the st time just list the used your argument doesn't go to say for example the number of characters that are available in that box on the dining lot or for the description it does not go to the number of characters it is simply that that was the was actually not part of the original record and that was part of a bankruptcy matter that was done it was not long afterward you're right though your honor but that was not i would point out that was not part of the original some judgment record that was before judge palmer and there was no evidence of that ever produced in the case actually it might is that the the thing that you're objecting to that the bankruptcy filing does say it was february th two thousand and eighteen that monit so they would have come over to them as money regardless i think was the end of two thousand and seventeen when it was originally written so they would have come over with mani as a group of accounts all together so it again creditor is when they receive a dunning letter from and dr west position is that well it's basically up to the consumer to figure it out we told you not so you know respond to us if you need to do some internet  think well i'm going to pick this name that was temporary might even not you can use anymore but that's the thing that i was told a year ago when the when the account was raised with me so that's the name that i'm going to use and if you don't understand it's on you to figure that out now and that is the let me just push back and say you know that the debt collectors are in a volume business right and so what you're saying is they can't just take the name that the client is using at the time the debt package it's probably a package of debts it's turned over to them and then just go forward with that name they have some extra burden to figure out what's going on with the corporate naming before they send out dunning letters well this the way to identify the creditor they did not meet the burden that forth in genitor so would you say that there's a safe harbor if the debt collector always uses the official corporate name even if that official corporate name doesn't happen to ring a bell for people i say be much more difficult if they use the full legal name and that was the legal name at the end he was known as even if they had a branding strategy that used something else