good morning called the st matter for oral argument counsel can tell me if i'm pronouncing the name correctly we've had some controversy in my chambers as to whether or not i'm pronouncing it correctly in naples versus m r s if you and it's the name of the of the plaintiff that is at issue here that i was corrected on in james  and seventy seven to prohibit debt collectors from using abusive or deceptive collection practices it was also meant to level playing people and promote more whole collection practices by a court issuing or an order on damages that's not stipulated to that was opposed it's a fog of war nonetheless on on damages in on liability the only issue a meaning in the dish or court is that of attorney's fees and costs and the supreme court was very clear in hook in how look that issue may remain open and in fact it's a final order it once the issue of why ability in damages have been determined in fact unhook the the power and missed his window to appeal because he waited to appeal after thirty days following the you were on attorneys fees to jurisdiction had been lost so i think the issue of jurisdiction is is fairly clear here that we have a final appeal order from the dish or court for it but you've also raised an  was concerned not was his distinguishable because douglas concerned only an account number barely per bear imprinted visibly on the front of the on provoke the decision douglas made clear that they were injury effect which would be in it which would be the invasion of privacy or wouldn't well we have to look at what the what the harm is under the statute under six hundred and ninety two dollars now we're looking at it unfair ad and scan it right right but we have to look at the probability that anyone would do that and actually scan the code in blogger in which the doe baird is a do with injury in fact as easy as you're answering the question the point you've just made what does that have to do with it injury in fact the likelihood that someone would do it i mean that's not the way we've measured it in any of our cases i don't think that's the way the supreme court thought about it in spokeo and other cases so where's that coming from i believe it's book you make clear you have to look at the injury or the harm that the statute was meant to prohibit if you are going to attac standing or for a statutory violation here spoke a zero like here did involve an intangible injury in that it did so where do you find some requirement that we look at a probability the probability of an actual invasion occurring i believe some of this comes back to the proper interpretation of the statute you have to find that there a probability that there you have to find there is probability that the injury converse ought to prohibit could occur did occur say did we say that in the douglas address standing at all your honor douglas merely it decided issue of liability when a when an account number is bit is printed directly above the consumer's name and  proof which plaintiffs in this case have not presented they presented no evidence whatsoever that anyone has ever been exposed as a debtor based upon a hue arc of being scanned and they presented no evidence that there is a possibility there is no herself testified that she couldn't conceive of how anybody could identify her as a debtor based upon the q r code and i think it's important that the bearer made a clear distinction of douglas waldron waldron which is an additional court case out of i believe the west or dish or pennsylvania made a clear distinction that a q r code by itself is not going to expose the person as a debtor but there's a distinction between if you are code where you have to scan it in view it versus having it printed directly on the letter in there is a probability aspect to the extent that it's possible that somebody could view all that are words in plain and make the connection that the person is a debtor it's another step entirely removed that somebody would use a bottle of ink about a vision of probably we don't think about invasion of privacy as a general matter by probability  i mean just because the probability is with regard to a potential invasion of privacy you don't say well we're not going to worry about that right but that aside we've talked question to you is as you analyze douglas in order to for us to come out where you think we should we have to overturn douglas or is or or you  basing your distinction on the q r code on the one hand versus the account number one you do not have to overturn douglas because it's not controlling your dog was made very clear that it concerns a pair printing of the rule against you that would be an extension rather of our douglas decision the question the area of disagreement may be the extent the degree of extension it depends on how the think douglas is close i don't think the douglas is a political here no i didn't ask you that is if you don't think it was you don't think it's close no because putting putting the account number behind a barcode takes  number can create an avenue to access with regard to identification and therefore an invasion of privacy when judge cares asked you about the excess ability of the   r code and the avenue that the q r code provides to identification and therefore invasion of privacy doesn't that bring the  douglas holding squarely within what we're talking about now i understand that you're relying on probability as sort of the background of boy or analysis but it would appear them both instances you're able to one way or another to get to a person's identity and thus an invasion of privacy so why isn't the rationale in douglas clearly applicable here again your honor it douglas is about a number being printed on a novel hope and found that in that circumstance there was a probability of harm the question is how far ten you waited can you get from that in still find viability if there were x ray been no evidence presented by the point of that there's any harm or probability of harm to someone scanning illegally illegally scanning up another potions mail reading a barcode reading a is liability and we disagree that there is here but if there is liability the debt collector may vishy i though the the act was unintentional and despite always it unintentional that's question number one there have to show the court that that would actually happen but it is under spewed at that it would happen you know before the court is no question that if we were to scan the q r code you'd see the account number so that's our proof that the question is is there harm here and absolutely information increased their if their identity theft or some other future harm so we maintain that we've absolutely established what we need to establish in terms of article three fatting you know stick with me for a minute section six thousand and ninety two f says you can't use your business address your business name on an envelope if it discloses you're in the debt collection business right now it seems to me if you go on to google and look at you have a series and business name if it will not reflect that the business name is related debt collection but again the plain language of a statute still privet any words or symbols and the only time that we can permit words  articulated instead the universe is work our world is just a year or two ago the past we use to determine whether or not this article three standing and that test is straightforward it's simply where plaintiffs intangible injury has been made legally  three democratic process and the injury closely related to a cause of action traditionally recognize that american doesn't work is standing he should really come down to whether the injury that you have play not that much well i do i get it wrong sometimes maybe you guys don't matter now you probably read those criticisms what's your reaction to the attack or analysis or lack thereof those courts are from outside rd circuit within on the outside of a question letter prohibited obviously by the consumers after a sort of consumer's name is not written in the statute but it would be absurd to prohibit gas we can't mail something in the postal service without a name or address but an account number which is you know specific has specific better that is not absurd to prohibit just like it would be absurd to prohibit the phone number of the debtor or their social security number or any other protected information so i do think that th i rejected the f a claims in those cases were specific tracking numbers assigned by reps bring in the mail vendor for the piece to mail like a u p s tracking code or an at fed ex tracking code and it didn't include the account number but in this case they did include the account number more than two months after his court issued their devastation but so you just you just said in response to judge greenways question in the course of responding judge who is question here there was no error you don't need to see that and in fact if if we were if the district court at the pleading stage they are saying there was an error why don't you simply say assuming they're correct the error was a legal or not a factual error and therefore it doesn't help them here yes around i was actually about to get that i was saying the st one was it does your honor in terms of we're german says you know this is meant to apply to clerical mistakes if they want to say we didn't need to put the q r code on there we told our male banter to take it off but they left it on there anyway that would be a point to error but the day he test deposition at that this this is not the case they want this q r code it was put on their purpose to help them track their mail but again when they wanted to track their mail they included in the account number in there even though they really should not have done that  i can address my billionaire douglas or continue talking about article three standing if you could go full circle do we have jurisdiction we think nobody vission as to whether or not the finality of the lower courts a stipulation  judgments give this court jurisdiction i know that we were we had a number of conversations with the lower court in terms of how to make this final set up a case could be brought up on appeal otherwise what would have to happen is we would have to file a motion for attorneys fees and costs on  the c p a then we would have to do this appeal and then we would have to go back to the lower court for another round of attorneys who don't cough petitions and i think that's why the lower court said all right you know you have a judgment here the judgment is final it's not changing depending on what happens in the appeal so you know he thought we thought that would work we're ok with that but we don't believe it's necessary i don't think we're ok with that but i don't know that that would be promote fairness to promote legal lawful debt collection it is not to promote an entrepreneur worrying point of attorney and a statute that allows for shifting attorneys  it is immaterial difference because it was available to the public in plain view without more here it is not available to the public in plain view without more it's behind a bar code which was for the purpose of her turn mail my car i did not put that put the q r code or their their internal account number on the letter to expose this person and it is a debt and is subject to debt collection nor did they ever conceive that in the world of it most possibilities there was a possibility that it would they put it on there to effectuate or turn mail and here we are too far removed from the real world where there no evidence and plaintiff is present in the mountains that anyone is out there stealing mail a legally scanning bar codes and figuring out that the contents there are concern that caution and i urge you to think about purpose the broader purpose of the f t c yang in considering this decision and the fact that there are no facts that support plaintiff's business and if there's been any harm or that she has been exposed as a