injunction that it converted from a temporary restraining order that was granted ex parte exceeded the scope of the laws that the federal trade commission was suing our client over as well as the case law that governs the maximum scope of equitable relief that is permissible at the planetary injunctive stage i don't think there is a dispute about the ninth circuit law clued in land west and that holds that torrie basis under or pursuant to which the f t c brought suit that that under that act that the relief concerning acts or practices must involve foreign commerce that quote cause or likely to cause reasonable foreseeable injury within the united states close quote or that quote involve material conduct occurring within the united states when we briefed the  it we did not contest and do not contest now and do not seek to vacate or change the ruling in any respect that retreat that restrains hardwire from doing anything inside the united states or doing anything that would affect the united states from outside the united states at the time that the point marion junction was ordered and before our client had any notice that the f t c was even looking into it it was already moving away from the entire united states voluntarily there disputed issues of fact this too whether or not that was entirely or client's intent or whether or not your client was actually going to see so many operations in the united states to in the receiver excuse me and the f t c dispute that the f while with the i'm not sure that the that there were actually was a dispute on that i think what the receiver said which was true was that at the time of the polygamy injunction there was still we then moved completely out of the united states that there were call centers there were payment gateways there were marketing operations that were still ongoing that would that is that is a true statement i'm not suggesting that at the time the player injunction order was entered that we were out completely that would be a completely different argument we've been making the point that i'm making is is that the time that the order was entered we had already voluntarily started moving out it wasn't complete what the clear injunction did was shut it down entirely inside the united states and outside the united states were not contesting although we disagree with the underlying facts and that's for trial what we're saying is what is the appropriate limit for prospect of relief between now and trial if the plan or injunction said you can't do business with anybody inside the united states you can't do business with any of the other co defendants you can't do business with any united states consumer and you cannot do business with any united states vendor we'd be fine with that but didn't didn't the commission and the district court have the  wasn't appropriate for them to be concerned about a whether your clients were going to do what they said and be whether or not these foreign operations were in fact going to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the united states to they have to take your client at its word no they don't have to take our client at its word but the whole their whole case their whole case was that we are coconspirators in a common enterprise with other u s defendants the trial defendants brian phillips and others they also were under a planetary injunction and they didn't contest any aspect of their conduct so that would stay there and be in place and we would be able to touch them in any case in terms of whether our conduct would outside the united states with that inside the united states there was no evidence that that was happening or that was going to happen the f t c the entire complainant presentation of the other tenants soley centered around united states customers when the f t c in the receiver came in with their injunction they took over all of those accounts and all of that data when we made the argument that said we that that and this is also uncontested that we were not under investigation or anything like that and outside the united states they didn't show any foreign consumers that were complaining about anything i mean that they can be concerned but they've got a receiver they've got a federal judge who has a plan or injunction is overseeing us they have a media discovery tools they have all kinds of enforcement mechanisms mechanisms to guard against that and so it has to go from the conclusion that because something happened in the past which is now enjoined that therefore something in the future that they haven't alleged and that isn't a violation will occur is a leap that wasn't supported by any evidence but i'm i'm sorry i'm they entitled to enjoin it because there have once they made the finding are that it was likely already that the c what it was being violated that they could then be empowered to enjoin assets necessary to provide the relief in the future how to present it were not contesting that either ok we didn't we didn't try to undo the asset freeze or change that in any respect this is what we is this is sort of the scenario that we were looking at if hardwire right now opened up an office outside of the united states hired vendors outside of the united states that don't involve any of the receiversh or the defendants in any way and engage in business with foreign consumers where the point of this record there's no come there's no issue about that part of the business there's no evidence that there were any complaints  consumers i mean even inside the united states the conduct that was alleges very narrow related to billing disclosures that then relate to return policies that didn't relate to provision of products writing like that was very narrow so even even in your view even if there were finding that you're free injunction foreign operations rely on domestic facilities your view is that the district court did not have the discretion to say you'd been using the mystic facilities for your foreign operations and so i'm going to enjoin your foreign operations for the district court lacked the discretion to decide that was necessary to protect injury to prevent injury within the u s the district court had the authority to tell us not to do business inside the united states for sure the in the district court right i understand that's your position but you're not disputing the prior to the injunction the foreign operations were in fact using domestic facilities in part we are that's true but we also are not we also are disputing that that caused any unlawful conduct or result in any lawful conduct that was an issue that we were willing to just lay down on and and assume was an issue for this purpose because again we had already been exiting outside the united states so we didn't care what what anything happened inside the knives is just didn't concern us the issue now that that that was concerning it is concerning is is if we open up an office outside the united states that doesn't touch any consumer inside the united states it doesn't touch any business inside the kids inside the united states that doesn't involve the united states in any way that would not be a violation the safe web act it would not be a violation of any other part of section five erotica and it and but it would be a violation of the pl in their injunction well then that raises the question how could a court a district court enter  not to do that and that's the argument we presented to the district judge during the point or injunction hearing he found because all this conduct happened in the past that he couldn't join all of it and he didn't address in his order the argument that i'm making doing the same business in the united states it lays before it at the time of the injunction we were still in the united states we ballpark the cap of some percent of our entire business of revenue generation was in the united states at the time that the injunction was honored the other ninety three percent was outside we presented evidence below that in terms of the outside united states that there were for there were foreign websites there was foreign consumers all the money flowed outside the united states all of that and we asked for that to be did try to make a minor modification to it between the t r time the t r o was entered in the time the plenary injunction was entered to get some relief on the foreign aspect to have call centers to continue and so forth and that was denied we then made the same argument that i'm making right now in front of the district asking that you still maintain the ability in the future even if you were to lose this appeal to ask the district court things have changed you should modify your order you might not when they are but you you have the ability to do that  have the ability to do that but we think that if the if the law the cases is that the safe web act can reach this kind of foreign conduct in light of the authorities that we cited including the supreme court case that  the mean there's a couple that we cited then why the odds of that happening are likely very low between now and trial even though after trial that conduct cannot be enjoined you're a cancer you're over your time for the federal trade commission please the court if your honour's the whole premise of hard wires appeal is flawed it is based on a factual assertion that is counterfactual and tireless speculative it counterfactual and specifically their statement that they were moving outside of the united states so the district court shouldn't have worried about about its activities outside of the united states counterfactual because the evidence as your honour's have recognized showed and the receivers report made clear to the district court cited this and during the preliminary injunction that they actually they were expanding they were planning to expand the documents showed their presence in the united states the only reason that sales in the united states declined the first half of two thousand and eighteen is because the merchant accounts were being there shell corporations the united states were being shut down as people complained about the deceptive and fraudulent practices and their solution hardwire solution to that was to rely more heavily on foreign and shell accounts and merchant accounts to process sales for united states consumers so that is a demonstration of them using their overseas instrumentalities and operations to target u s consumers now the only question before this core is whether the preliminary injunction based on the facts that were presented in the district court is support comes and do you agree with you agree with your colleagues assertion that the injunction the district court issued preliminarily that the district court would lack the jurisdiction to enter the same injunction as a permanent injunction if you want to after a trial you agree with that well that the court would have if the court saw a continued risk that hardwire was going to use its over or seize operations based again on the facts presented that that presented a likelihood of recurrent violations targeting u consumers and affecting u s interests so yeah that's agreed depending on the facts presented at trial it is a factual question what we have right now is a preliminary injunction based on the facts presented facts that that are not clearly supported and these facts are not facts that hard wire in this appeal has really challenged other than that and then a few comments here or there it has made no effort to show any clear error in the factual premise underlying the preliminary injunction which is that it was not in fact it did not in fact have any holy overseas operations it was part of a u s base common enterprise and even apart from the common enterprise all of its activities including overseas sales and u s sales were based and rooted in u s conduct material conduct in the united states and its conduct overseas was injuring or was likely to injure u s consumers w avoid any u s impacts absolutely hardwired hardwire could do that and if it did that then as as your honor pointed out it has the opportunity if it does to come forward to the district court either as part of a proceeding to delimit to to identify the appropriate scope of permanent injunctive relief or on a motion to modify the preliminary injunction and present concrete facts whether there are things that are going on right now or there are specific plans that it has going forward to identify and to make clear to the court how it is going forward to do things differently what instrumentalities it is going to use so that the court has an assurance and can shape injunction around concrete facts not pure speculative hypotheticals which is all that hard wire has presented here your honour's if you have any other questions i'm happy to answer i would just observe that for seems to have been at the end there very i think was a change in the positioning that we had before at the just a court level the argument was was that they didn't have to show foreign conduct but that the relief that they're seeking now that we're opposing and this is a quote from the f t c at the hearing is that quote there is an argument to be made that even if everything was located overseas we still could have the f t c act coverage over those acts has that happened yet not that i'm aware of the relief that they were seeking below that they got was unprecedented and exceeded the scope and for that reason and given what the position that they've taken the position we just got that maybe i mean the clear exemption should be remanded back for that determination because we can make those showings and we thought we did but they just weren't addressed in the blair injunction order so if that's the disconnect then that's the relief that needs to happen but the law the case can't be that we can never do anything overseas that doesn't touch the united states in any way which is the position the counsel law the case in an equitable action doesn't prevent you from showing some sort of changed circumstances to change the equitable relief that's that's fair and that's we agree have to agree with that and so if that's