we're going to go on to direct energy and ask what the price was going to be for the next month it wasn't automatically disclosed because of the price the last trip up price transparency in the market was a simple thing could not know what the what the coastal parts of electricity was for a given mon price and i'm channeling judge posner and kilowatt per hour charge you don't know how that was broken up between what they believe are playing with the wholesale price i what is there after which accounts for their profit accepted these rates paid them each month you have the ability to call ahead and find out what those rates were going to be and you have the option to cancel anytime you want now that's exactly right and the council said that that doesn't matter because there was no way for m they have to post twelve months of historic period already but there are also a number of other sites that provide information that would be available to consumers or to counsel who are interested in bringing claims like th this historic rates are posted current rates will definitely be posted but that doesn't the fact that mr sudan or other consumers like him would have to do a little bit of work to come up with x show are comments rights and a p j emirate which the plaintiff it's not the p g a right for the los it's a weighted rate across thirteen states and twenty one different load zones that those are the only factual allegations and the district court correctly found that could and should have done that investigation ahead of time and they suggested that this case presents a novel question about the plausibility thing that's in their statement about oral argument that this is their novel legal questions regarding plausibility when facts are not known or not available direct energy charges a deregulated rate but the contract didn't require direct energy to wait those prevailing prices in any particular way or to outweigh the comments right against the others that were available it left that question the direct energy and that's something that a complaint which is falling twenty fifteen that included information about north american powers variable rates for electricity during a time period that overlapped with direct energies the complaint said that that rate the north american power a week from five applicable and what mr sitting in that is no different than the consumer in a restaurant who says the lobster market price i'll take it without asking what the price he had the option to call in ahead of he had the option to find out by going to plug in illinois dot or what other rates were available to him he had the option to leave anytime you want to without any penalty and could have gone to any other supplier and chose not to direct energy have not done anything to hide the covenant under illinois law still allows that discretion to be exercised very broadly and i would say that with that rep the discretion it's completely unreasonable to say that a consumer would expect preventing market prices to be based on just one price whether just undermines that entirely that provision only explains that buyout comet's rate is set by the illinois commerce commission direct energies rate and and the rates of all other energy suppliers it references i'm saying the way that argument and i'm also saying that he has not presented a reasonable alternative their argument to our interpretation of the contract find an ambiguity to have the two reasonable interpretations are there and he's not present one but he did weigh that argument the terms and conditions that have been used but i do know that the contract of samit in richard's connecticut requires that the contract be submitted to peer of the regulator there ahead of time and it has to include certain disclosures by statu hits on some important policy implications in that the suggestion that a regulated utility rate should be imposed on retail energy suppliers i see that my time coming to an end so as any other question participant have a small sliver of the consumer marketplace will come at a majority at seventy percent we think about this from a kind of trust perspective for example a company with sixty seven percent market share would be considered a near monopoly so if other individuals would be joining in this complaint the direct energy is not competitive or the violence of its contract other individuals could have been discovered could have been talked to as to what their experiences were with other areas correct