two decades ago back in two thousand and one the chocolate industry promised to eradicate the worst forms of child labor from its west african supply chains by two thousand and five this deadline missed the promise to do it instead by two thousand and eight that became two thousand ten that became two thousand and twenty the peson center which was funded by the department of labor to assess the industry's progress towards meeting the schools found that the percentage of child but now for the elements that must be met and there are several there must be no mission the mission must be material and that goes to the content of leadership information is something that's going to have a tendency to influence the purchasing  understanding what you are limiting principle is because i'm just sitting here i could think of several dozen things that some consumers would like to know supposedly the sole owner of the company who's devoting all the imagine you making the exact same arguments and that i'm starting to think what label look like ooh we're done please write you a limiting principle that would exclude all these other things absolutely right and it's the th line that is the limiting principle in this circumstance here so that as we know also requires that for there to be a deception and a consumer must be acting reasonably under the circumstances in this is where the district court is exactly where the district court ended that the district court said it is unreasonable for consumers to form any sort of preconception about whether or not the worst forms of child labor existed in supply chains in this unique situation where you have this general consensus in terms of people believing that this is wrong these sort of abusive practices from my children on the other hand you take your sorts of examples it really have a situation of personal preference what sort of religion to some in support and to support a union so they support a particular political party in this situation states it's absolutely no the standard use would be a reasonable consumer we're looking at bad packaging if the packaging is silent wouldn't be reasonable consumers just is the other major holding of the district court that it was unfair to not make the disclosure here because defendants have made the information available on their websites the problem is that consumers are aware of everything on the internet and they don't know to look for a problem that they're  of and it can ok so your argument has shifted that the packaging must make the consumer aware of problems as to bridge there is a consensus that there is a problem is that what you're arguing that a consumer or reasonable consumer it's reasonable for a consumer to have an expectation about a product when there requirements and likely to mislead is is whether or not plaintiffs know whether consumers know about the issue already and i think if you're talking about the fact that bridges may be lower it in other it in asian countries in  this is the he said we're having the same difficulties trying to paint how you distinguish those situations and bill create a slippery slope that we all go down to the way and break it and that  in such a protracted problem in this gone on for two decades now without solution and really a situation where a consumer actually recently in the circumstances would think that this is completely unacceptable and that there is consensus that the worst forms of child labor around except around supply chains and that's something that they expect to be disclosed at the point of that the benefactress here disclosed this problem repeatedly so your website it's in their corporate responsibility reports congress has the house of congress has passed legislation on it and it's been in newspapers across the country for decades including in boston n decision which obviously a transaction not a consumer product but case the supreme judicial court distinguish between a physical conditions that are rooted in the land and transience social conditions that may actively interfered with its intended use that caused a safety hazard so the allegation that it made a difference to her wasn't enough so it's a real estate case but there's no rational reason why a different rule should apply in a consumer case in a in a personal property case i would say your honor so you don't have to go so far as to lay down a bright line that would answer every case it would be enough to hold it where the mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances that's the deception piece and rd a separate element the representation of a motion or practice is material that the material of the piece and then can also later went on to say a practice may be deceptive if it could reasonably fit be found to have caused a person to act differently from the way he otherwise would have acted here the defendant's product labels did nothing to contribute let alone a cause as is required plaintiffs allege misimpression in fact all the defendants this throws are on their web sites and in other places the  even more to the side of the fact that the real mission here we have to worry about legal standards thank you so the lack of disclosure here  decided in the same year by in essence the same panel store the five commissioners were the same the only reason one was different was ron had replaced another either same commissioner dissented in both of them was decided as mr merryman pointed out pas ation or that the act of omission on the part of the defendants must in some way be either deceptive or unfair the very terms in the statute deceptive unfair require not just that the omission of having the plaintiff in some way that it involved material information it's not just focused on the information that was omitted but also on all agree on both plaintiffs and defendants set for the governing standard and one component of that standard is a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and that's precisely what the district court keyed in on on here i would s keyed in on correctly because that stander looks not only to what the consumer believed but also to how many men ready any fracture might be required to anticipate a consumer to the issue of what is on the packaging is separate independent of that because again if the packaging is silent the question is not what information the consumer might be able to find elsewhere but what sort of acting reasonably under the circumstances wouldn't look at just the packaging you know the five inches of packaging on a candy bar and assume that information they might consider immaterial to their purchasing decision is on that packaging and i think that's need to look elsewhere to decide to do deal with respect the package because that seems to so you seem to be staking out a different position i'm sorry rather i didn't mean to stake out a different position i don't think it depends on the information actually being elsewhere i think what it depends on is where a reasonable consumer approaching the so i think they call that truth or omissions that relate to several characteristics of the product physical characteristics of the property or something else that the context of the transaction gives some sort of implied meaning t that the best would hope this problem well consumers can have effect here and after two decades of insufficient progress having been made and who knows the outcome of what's going on into the tariff act now but you know there's power in the pocketbook and for consumers to be able to know what's going on to make a choice not to support the worst forms of child labor that could be important and effective in changing the outcome here and i just wanted to follow up on the the mercury example if if if there's you know widespread contamination into the communities water supply over a long period of time such that you have the general populace thought that was important and there was general agreement on that and it would be a consumer acting