contracting ovarian cancer all right let me stop you right there since you have invoked the word risk because i want to begin by understanding or hoping that i understand what this case is not about and in my understanding your theory correctly that the case has nothing to do with whether your client has a varian cancer or even has a risk  then claim a fall would fail on the merits what i'd like to hear you address the supreme court's decision in spokeo because while the facts are not the facts of this case it makes clear that a point if can't meet the article three standing obligations that exist by a mere allegation of some procedural the same principle cannot be applied here even if johnson and johnson feel to provide your client with health warnings and that's what you're suggesting isn't that what was advice in situations where there is a statute that says here is a penalty and it doesn't matter whether or not people care about whatever the purpose of the statute was in pr more expensive than the competitor law says they were just lost that the difference was on the packaging the manufacturer wrote the block sets were made in the usa you know there has been news items concerning visually have to demonstrate that if the matter with trial will be good all the matter at the moment or harm is the purchase of a false advertising good well you would have done with the seen pursuing an economic claim under this theory perhaps there are there are others but as a consequence you're going to have to show somebody for purposes of showing a washer going to have to show that you're out something now i presume remaining this may not have that claim as a matter wrong would end up failing because you suffered no damage where is the limiting principle here to this kind of claim and suggests that the product may have subjected someone to risk now on eat do we craft a rule that says as long as it is respectable academic research that has big out there then that's sufficient were can a mere rumor or urban legend be enough to suggest somehow that this crowd up is so out there where you cannot possibly have any causation between the form and the ability to complain about it when the tenth circuit has elected to carve out a kind of frivolous except to bring a lawsuit to complain about it in federal court isn't it could it isn't control the easier case rather than yours because you've got this wasted product upon which you can place some kind of economic value and not be its addicts that all of a consumer who says your claim is a canap is economic harm and so it is necessarily based on the damage that she concurred because treat would not have purchased right but her play fails if she was found to be acting remember the specific advertisement that they actually saw the conveyed whatever the false statement was that they claim to base their their cause of action so if you can recall for example that i remember seeing and i was injured by steam and i never saw i don't know how that's traceable to the wrongful conduct it did the wrongful conduct to cause an injury there's no link between that and any economic injury otherwise so i disagree with with you when you mention chris has to be traced i wasn't sure whether we has this is an area where the two issues overlap in terms of economic injury and that the underlying aspects of the client you may not be able to show it later on but i'm i'm thinking this is the police station the department's kind of love with this rel for specific a if their promise about an aspect of the product to be fair is sort of an intangible aspect right it's we promise that this was me tonight states that specific statement is part of the reason people buy that it's part of the package of suggest that the distinction between an affirmative misrepresentation and a material omission is somehow relevant to standing purposes and it seems to me f it recognizes that when you're dealing with a door the product in particular and to go back to some of the examples that you discussed earlier there ensued the on going on for example if you have a car and the early bags you know are unsafe to use required article three standing in order to bring back a claim the kwikset case also addressed the issue of injury back in addition to loss or money money or property which my point just referred to and hell if you have what but we detail how there was a long term about a plan to market this product and the reason why was particularly important to market johnson's baby shower as as safe and gentle and free from weight of contracting ovarian cancer which is a very deadly form of cancer was because it was a cornerstone of the entire johnson and johnson company it was that bad baby in the powder that johnson and johnson brand itself as a good company overall it was really directed through the baby powder product but the big car was absolutely advertised for decades let me say let me turn to a portion of this case that has not been touched deceived into purchasing baby powder again in the future so is the class represented so the first case to address this at the apollo was davidson versus kimberly clark with the dress in october of this past year straw purchase this product and use it for sixty years she has why did she has used it all her life and she stopped using it because of the increased risk of ovarian cancer she would want to purchase it again now can we  magazines my question of course went to visit strada and his indications about standings no this question doesn't implicate standing but assuming that