between the parties as this court observed earlier this year and cordoba v direct t v quoting circuit precedent where an agreement events is a clear intent to cover more than just those matters worse than the contract this court has up held and enforced broad clauses requiring arbitration of all disputes between the parties and quote that said the narrower path this court ultimately charted in cordoba provides an independent basis to compel arbitration here this court reverse denial of a motion to compel arbitration under materially similar circumstances like here the point i've been part of a signed up for t v services pursuant to a subscriber agreement like here the agreement included a clause requiring arbitration of any dispute between the parties and like here the plaintiff nevertheless sued on a federal statutory claim alleging the unauthorized sharing of personal information obtained pursuant to that agreement this court compelled arbitration on the ground that quote don't miss claimed at least arose out of or related to his relationship with defend it if not for playing of subscribers lation ship with dependent disk or wrote quote the factual allegations arbitration agreement itself said that the claim has to arise out of or relate to the agreements and in fact telecom italia supportive because it goes on to say yes in fact the parties wanted a broader relationship they would have used broader language and that's what this board also said and go and have a spirit that's this case where it's undisputed you arbitration your agreements your is much broader than that in telecom italia it sa be direct t v decision which is to say even if you read into unlike in telecom italia you read into this arbitration agreement the same limiting principle that it has to arise out of or relate distinction well your honor i guess a couple things in the front line arbitration agreement in fargo what was similar it's all claims and then it said including and then it specified different things like including claims that arise out of the relationship that you have similar language here it's any dispute and then there there is it defines any dispute as any claim or controversy related to comcast including and then it goes through a subset there isn't a fact there is no factual dispute on the record as to whether comcast actually possessed the personal information and before if you look at complaint paragraph eleven even though they allege that in their brief it's nowhere in the record paragraph eleven of their complaint says comcast never even requested point of social security number to run the credits not to run the pool and then the declarations that were submitted at the motion to compel arbitration also support that the patella declaration and that's even one paragraph by comcast verify the information already on file there is no statement in either the complaint or the declarations from either side that create any dispute that comcast have this personal information in fact it's undisputed that it did it had a prior subscriber relationship with the plaintiff part of that prior subscriber relationship and in fact it b of the agreement itself says that the plaintiff has to give the personal information to comcast the comcast have that personal information and then it verified that information now there are multiple touch point to comcast their section where t n of the agreement which is a privacy notice which governs the treatment of personable identifiable information and then there are other prevention such as section two g and section twenty eight which govern situation and the rich a customer calls back and tries to get comcast service again and an to h is explicitly a quite a credit inquiry provision which says quote you authorized comcast and many credit inquiries reasonable business purposes so at the very a claim for an authorized running on authorized credit check it lease relates to the prior subscriber relationship and agreement the court can simply reverse on that ground like it be direct t v if the court wants to go further and beats the year that this court decided in brown he can do that which is to say look when an arbitration agreement says any dispute it means any dispute and what th in brown reject that argument it said no i can't so it sat for the reasons above we also find the with this argument and persuasive i wasn't able to see a lot of analysis i'll say different result so again your honor that's the broader theory you don't have to go all the way in there like you did for doe but be direct t v you could decided on the narrower ground that look there are a lot of touch points year between the claim d agreement at least arises out of or late to that prior subscriber agreement that's enough to decide this case but again you do decide to address the broader issue i think this court's precedent points strongly in the arbitration contracts and so you know i have a lot of cases necessarily dealing with the broad language that we have today what would you say if there if there isn't if let's say for purposes of argument that we decide that there said oh look i can think of these far fetched hypotheticals kind of analogous to the securities fraud claim here or the comcast truck hitting a child here and with its circuit said is look we're not going to go into far fetched hypotheticals and facts we to the facts as presented in the claim before us and decide whether it can be validly applied to the facts before us so here again i think there are so many touch points it's amply connected to that that prior subscriber agreement were well with then even the normal arbitration clause let alone this broader arbitration clause so your honor i don't think you need to resolve the extreme case which again comcast has never raised this arbitration clause has no intent of raising th a request for pricing to hold mr jones credit without a without his permission now defendant here comcast they use the information that he provided during a phone call as long as there are other personal identifiers such as a name address and date of birth the assumption that because they had a social security number previously they were able to pull the credit is no where in the complaint or in the evidence there's no question section nine us each section two and the plain language of section two says any arbitration needs to be limited to the contract or the underlying transaction the authorit analysis what what would a reasonable consumer believe when they are entering into that agreement the nd component of georgia one is that the interpretation would be to an absurd result or should instead give it a  reasonable construction whatever to make of the fact that every reasonable consumer or whatever reason will consider probably believes is i need to click this little check box before i can get my comcast cable set up that's correct you know we all do that but the clear intent of the parties here when you look at the language the the language is in the early advising the consumer assuming mr huhne didn't just click because you want to use a contract for mason if the if the consumer doesn't recognize any more claim to be something that is going to be completely unrelated to the agreement or a transaction then the f a can compel the result of arbitration you know the assault of the person was not part of her employment right that seems like a pretty important difference yes it wasn't part of her appointment but it was it dispute between the parties claim survive in litigation without being compelled and i think that analysis does apply here in our cases similar to those planes into their status was really the triggering event to when you get to the underlying agreement or transaction mr status as a former subscriber is not an essential element of any of this claims agreements i don't think the brown case really addressed that argument it certainly was certainly raised by one of the parties there but it didn't go into it instead it counts that argument as another argument to another for this court to let go of the immediate st syllable test for the buffer test and that's not correct the girl was focused on contract for me and the lower court found that the contract wasn't  formed because of the lack of intent of the parties to cover the type of dispute the three with or sang the intent of the parties was doing compas the type of this you as an actor subscriber and therefore there was no floor in the contract for mission and seventeen when mr hahn terminated the agreement on twenty six dollars when he signed the agreement that it would include claims underlay opposed germination years later the district court felt it wasn't that way and i think that's the appropriate result require any proving that he was a prior subscriber of comcast and for that reason the conduct here temporarily and substantively apart from what happened in two thousand and seventeen i think the outside the scope doesn't make any difference whether they had all the information they need to have it at the time of this call or not so  marriage by contrast in appellate briefing so we have to address it there the fact that they have this information before as opposed to it was provided by phone that's why i put into my footnote that the congress is shifting the story on appeal brief which clearly lays out all of the record evidence in the district court contrast that paragraph five dollars and six dollars of that declaration which was never rebutted by plaintiff until it his reply brief argument not in any of the evidence in the record not in mr hearns declaration but here's what paragraph five and six a comcast business records reflect the plaintiff placed a call on march th about reconnecting comcast services that is be able to address during that call a comcast customer service verify plainest personal information on file for the mableton account and confirm he was seeking to reconnect services at the middleton address following verification of plain as personal information the c s r use the information in comcast business records in connection with the mableton account including a social security number to initiate a credit inquiries that this was not raised for the st time on appeal by comcast this is in the district court it's in the record it was undisputed by the other side's declarations and in their complaint they even admit that plaintiff comp has never even requested the playing of social security number to run the pool now aside from that record factual point which is question crystal clear in the record that comcast had the information before and based on that information may on the credit pool that is the subject of this figure a claim beyond that let me address a few of the legal points here my colleague on the other side argues that that it's a question of the intent of the parties but under georgia law the best indication of the intent of the parties is the text of the contract and here the text of the contract is an ambiguous it says you shall arbitrate any dispute and then counsel for plaintiff argues well it wasn't clear that it would extend to disputes that arise after terminations but here's the nd sentence of the arbitration provision in section thirteen this is section thirteen be on page five th on page fifteen of the arbitration agreement it says this arbitration provision shall be broadly interpreted dispute means any claim or controversy related to comcast including but not limited to and this is cost three claims that arise after the expiration or term a nation of this agreement it could not be clearer it says it shall apply to claims that arise after the expiration or terminations of disagreements accounts on his side is simply wrong to say that they agreement was silent on post terminations claims it's there in black and white the last point i'll make your honor is judge grant you are right about the doe decision the critical difference is the agreement in doe set a rich relating not just any dispute as counts on the site said it's at any dispute arising out of or relating to the employment crew agreement and what this yes you or honor at the time of before they can be approved to be a customer then they run the credit check at that point and that there is a process by which they are informed the customer and an alternative mechanism rather than running a credit check a customer can post a bond or like a large deposit in lieu of running the credit check so just to be fully clear loser o