without st providing a clear and conspicuous stand alone disclosure as required by the statute now the question today is whether the district court was correct in ruling that when disclosure violates the statute and then whether judicial guidance is not immunize a company for violating an unambiguous statutory provision so naturally the th circuit siad opinion wasn't around when the defendant insi information about as long as it relates in some fashion to what a consumer report entails how it will be obtained and for which type of employment purposes and then quite a bit of information and so how why why isn't that reasonable for an employer before any of these decisions came out to think well we could employ that helpful information in our disclosure  for yes your honor so a few points there i don't think that the walker case is in any way inconsistent with gil bergen sayad with the walker court did was make the slight distinction that an investigative report is simply a subcategory of a consumer report and therefore so long as you include a limited very brief description of the investigative report you're not overwhelm me in the required party i mean it really wasn't germane and here there's basically a single sentence that that deals with the individual's relationship to this company talking to us right that's all it really says well your honor so that that's sort of the i guess let me pivot i don't want to get too bogged down in the investigative order so the there's sort of the one violation that the district court found the conflating the investigative report with the consumer report and what we call has here goes far beyond the very brief court certainly found that the th and the th violated it and my point is simply that that paragraph which was just one sentence in walker tracks almost identically with the last sentence of the disclosure issue here though we think the form violates it for multiple reasons it combines the consumer report with the investigative consumer report and it doesn't meet the very brief description that the th circuit allowed in walker even if you put that aside the last sentence of this disclosure is almost identically with the last sentence in fred meyer which the th circuit found violated and we also contend that the report is not clear and conspicuous it may be conspicuous but it's not clear  full information information that's supposed to be helpful is just as likely to confuse as it is to inform that's why congress enacted just law it's very straightforward and clear the only need stoli you're not the morning we have please the court my name is rick ross kelly i'm counsel for cross appellate when co foods l l c let me make one thing clear that i think was discussed but mr pellew so i think complicated the matter and that is the core  just a few seconds ago that walker foreclose the main argument that put the pollution mr bruce was making today and that is the district court had specifically found that under siad and gilbert winco had violated standalone disclosure requirement by combining the consumer report and the investigative consumer report walker stands for the proposition you combine you can combine the two because they're subsets of each other so that's arguments off the table but mr blues who is now arguing what they shifted the argument to in their for brief was arguing that the rd paragraph of the one who disclosure and the last sentence of the one who disclosure contained extraneous information we can sit we can contend that he can careful review of the two thousand and fifteen disclosure they're one in the same they're just subsets of each other and you can can include a concise explanation of the phrase a consumer report may be a pain for employment purposes and then it went on to give some examples of some concise type of language you can excellent question i have two responses number one the list in walker is not in the x exclusive list as an example of things that can be included so it begs the question that there is potentially additional information s ice files by mail by person by phone all that has to be read together with the last sentence and that's why the corps invalidated the two because it found that there was no overshadowing now when you're focusing on c s i and talking about all the different ways you can butchered i think it makes a difference because here the focus is upon in winco the focus upon when co is trying to get this information and you can get you can get it from us if you if you ask us for this a different there's no disclosure in walker is it ship well let me add one important part of the specific this closure information in the last sentence of the winkle disclosure is actually a concise even if it was helpful even if it wasn't actually ready well since i had of course as you are very well aware it was good news talking about with invalidated that the combining of state does it says you can obtain additional information by contacting us that's basically all it says it doesn't go into any more detail than that and that a z employer knowing ok number one it doesn't overshadow the disclosure of information or the fact that they're the information is being employment purposes number two it simply says you can get pain additional information if you want by contacting us and that's basically it so we didn't hear you the overshadow how many words there are so if you know that's a short because yes i think we can make a hard and fast rule is the number of words but it has to be the overall feeling of the other disclosure and what the court  would say the and the average individual would into her but from reading it does it focus does it keep their focus on the fact that or disclosing that they are making a that there is going to be a disclosure here or does it and they have e to wrap up is simply in wrapping up i would say not on our position and not only does the disclosure in question meet the walker standard but even if it didn't that certainly wouldn't be a willful violation because this was a two thousand and fifteen disclosure all of the litigation related to the stand alone disclosure requirement in one certain as happened two thousand and seventeen and subsequent that alone is it is an indication that based upon the number is vital point this theory that the test is really doesn't aid the consumer in reviewing the disclosure gillberg says no so that even helpful information can confuse consumers purpose doesn't override plain meeting and all this