standing the district court misread the supreme court's decision spokeo v robins in this court's decision in hancock the urban outfitters as having rejected standing based upon a claim for violation of statutory rights without it and allegation of harm in addition to the invasion of concrete interest created by statute the district court feel to consider statutes that are involved here in the intention of congress and forty nine u s c three one one zero sets and three one one five zero to identify and protect plaintiff's concrete interest in the accuracy of individual drivers safety performance records the harm that such in accurate records pose to our drivers professional reputation for safety is the kind of harm that has traditionally provided the basis for  suit in the engle american system in a row us record of drunk driving or hours of service violation in the trucking industry cannot be trivialized is comparable to a wrong concrete interest that is de facto real and actually exists now i get your point that this information the agency has here is more serious and zipcode information but still this case whole situ have to show something more than that there's inaccurate information in the government well i mean that and that may be why your individual drivers have standing because their has tens of thousands of member truck drivers who are on the road daily being cited for all kinds of it but i think you see my list and i get that point but in the hancock interpreting the supreme court's opinion scorpio we we said quite clearly you have to show some the fact to injury and what isn't here the defacto injury is the harm to a professional drivers reputation for safety in the trucking industry seen the information and in the governments this is the defacto injury that the supreme court and we were looking for they rendered but that's not true is it or why is that true of all of the drivers of an immediate threat of injury because all of those records are available to be disseminated all the individual records are available to be disseminated it's not just the prescreening employment program through which correct ok so that's what i'm focusing on either for the drivers whose information was released or for the drivers who weren't where is the defacto injury that flows from information that hasn't been released especially since as i understand this parts of that question one the information is available not just through the prescreening employment program ins also available through for you but it's also a political hot potato if for it also has an impact on reputation because of all the various rating system trying to get trying to understand why why the drivers are harmed by by the presence of any i can from asian given our decision in hancock which says you have to have something more harm that was alleged was related to zip codes that was the specific example and spokeo that the court said we can't even conceive of how wrong zip code can cause can cause any kind of arms and as i read the hancock decision well under the fair credit reporting act one of the elements of of the injury under the fair credit reporting act is in fact disclosure what we're saying here is that the stepped aside or involved identify a concrete interest in the accuracy of loser in this system regardless of disclosure say again under the traditional formulation of injury in fact the threat of injury is is just as powerful as the  are saying that the fact that the record existed in the system and that's a proven fact that's in the stats as a fact that the threat that that information may be disclosed whether it's directly to a motor carrier which would be the most injury a situation or whether it is simply released for use in all these various rating systems which which ultimately have an effect on a drivers employee ability because because  way i'm sorry i know it's frustrating but it helps me to think that it seems to me a simpler way for you to have brought your case i'm not advising how to bring your case but it's instructive here is that if mauer and weaver had actually  been fired from their jobs or had been unable to get a job because of this disclosure boy there you've got standing right you've got an economic interest at heart you haven't alleged that effect on the driver's reputation ok in the particular circumstances of the drivers that are involved here you've got these two a driver would not necessarily know the reason why he was denied  reporting act but in the record in this case the only the only requirement that a driver be be advised of whether or not the released information resulted in an ad impact would be in the consent form that is required under the prescreening employment program under that and again the you know the the it's unclear that motor carriers in fact follow through with that kind of thing because damages and related to the consent form of that kind of thing that all of those allegations would appear in a complaint because you guys you know you go ahead you can go i just want to ask you a question about them the way you conceive of the plaintiffs here so even if you think that it's not necessary that the information had been disclosed with respect to a particular individual i think if your views at least in your case is better for the two for which the information was disclosed three of whom we don't have any allegations about that and then there's everybody else in the association so am i right in anything in the case to know that there's no difference for our purposes between the three and forward as professional truck drivers that everybody has an interest in the federal regulatory authorities having an appropriate policy to ensure that the records that they maintain in their systems are accurate you know just  everybody else including the three who don't have those allegations but there's a second distinction isn't there and that is between the relief they're seeking so the two whose information was released they're seeking damages correctly right under  the court carolyn lopez on behalf of the government i just want to briefly start by talking about our our first argument on move ness which is that the bulk of plaintiff's claims here are for perspective which are for perspective believe are moved for two reasons first they're seeking to stop the transmission of all violations that are already cycled out of p s p and are no longer available as you can see causing today and second because they're seeking to change a war that simply doesn't exist anymore because it's then replacement of many more t in hancock this court make clear that that type of claims that plaintiffs are seeking to bring here which is just at heart that a pure procedural injury divorced from any concrete issue and what spokeo teaches us is that there's always a two part task in every case the first question is the question of whether the particular statute at issue in the litigation so the prospective relief isn't underfed it's under t concrete and trust and then step two under the spokeo test is always even if the answer to that second one is yes at step to the court always in this work out whether on a box of a particular record these plaintiffs have alleged the degree of enough for prospected he doesn't also apply for retrospective retrospective you understand that it's under a different fashion so i get that it's on her finger and i get that spokeo says what it says and then the question is then why do you come to the point that you can't make the same argument which is to say there's an opportunity to make a more concrete mis determination on her figure when it is through the lens of this particular regime because under the p s p the actually get notice so that under under the d o t specific statutes yeah you need to show that there is an actual tangible adverse consequence of the result of the dissemination of the information whereas underfed the supreme court has said that it's that because of the specific way the statutory damages provision works and in fit right says you can either get actual damages or damages of not less than one hundred more than one thousand dollars and so that type of cause of action for those types of damages of plaintiffs they could have gotten more concrete they could have made a more concrete claim of injury because in this case you have both a correct and you have the p s p in operation so in theory they an alternative to requiring them to submit a forty request so the possibility of choice actually in the ether as your brief itself contemplates yes given that can you just give us your response and for absolutely so again we think the foyer issue is fact their information was disseminated through foyer so this is all we're all looking at future potential injury that that injury has to be certainly and penn dean and it can't have an attenuated chain of causation of the speculative and here highly speculative that an employer rather than would choose to bypass the expeditious p s p system and go through the foyer route instead which takes more time outs and more time in the sense of to exemptions on a case by case basis the questions related to for you the government has consistently argued that p s p was only ever an alternative to poyet and that that driver's complete record everything that has ever driver's ever been specifically against p s v in the first circuit case of flock versus the department of transportation and they made the same arguments by the way to the supreme court ok thank you both cases