a is a victim of identity theft and only one company has repeatedly invaded mrs dole montaser private credit reporting information after repeatedly being notified about her identity theft and that that's because congress intended the fair credit reporting act to protect both the privacy and the accuracy of the most private financial information a consumer like mrs don't want a hat her credit report your honor as the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment to dish on three erroneous grounds for the district court apply a broad brush permissible purpose standard under the fair credit act to find that dish did not violate the person in this case dish to obtain a credit report to verify the customer is and to see if they are eligible for services yes your honor write and write it has to be because otherwise no company could ever be credit report to make sure that somebody is who they say they are and if they're eligible i mean the whole point is if you apply for a credit card if you apply for services i case here here as i understand it somebody called dish in january two thousand and seven you know let's just focus on january two thousand and seventeen gave a different name not your clients gave a different address not your clients gave a different phone number not your clients and gave a four digit or so security number that could apply as i calculate to one in every ten thousand people in the united states of america so multiplied by three hundred million and you get some number that's a lot is it not under those circumstances forget everything else appropriate for a company to see if that person is who they say they are and whether they qualif know your honor and there are several reasons for that so st the application that triggered the two thousand and seventeen credit in great was not done by a call to dish it was in that response to an application submitted not of your client and giving the last four digits of the post with your number that can apply to everyone in ten thousand people in the united states of america is that not appropriate for the distance then verify who the person is and then to see whether they qualify for so wasn't her name wasn't it was not her address right correct and it was not her phone number right ok so under those facts how was the company supposed to kno that five years ago someone claiming your client said that my ideas been folding and don't let anyone apply in my name because the pieces of information that work correctly were  can including two thousand and eighteen as her correct date of st that's because to get a credit for eight you need the correct date of birth you need one of the correct names st or last and you need the correct social security number whether it's the full nine or the last for statute for any other person if i if i apply and i give my name address last four digit dishes and title to my credit bureau with my information correct that's correct your honor so it's only going to be unique circumstances here because of the preexisting relationship you're not you're not indicting whole sale the online application process of that's correct we are not necessarily their own are and that's because the obligation on dish under the fair credit reporting act is separate and stricter than the obligation on desh from the settlement agreement however the settlement agreement the rule it's not a rule and i feel what is being missed is that the fair credit reporting act is intended to protect the privacy of mrs don't want to consumer reports so regardless of the settlement agreement we can look to the right and case that was cited in the brief that how that prior dealings between the parties regardless of the execution of a settlement agreement can put a party like dish on notice that it does not one computer system supposed to know it is your client when they're given the wrong name the wrong address the wrong telephone number and only numbers that belong to one in every ten thousand americans it's jane who was born on january st with these last four digits how does that supposed to put someone on notice that it's not jane so and so with the same four digits but a different number it was born on the same day we once did services i mean how was it reasonable how is it not reasonable for dish under those circumstances where they don't know for sure that it's your client to ask him to make sure and then once they're sure to say no no we're not getting services well this proved on january slide the social and dish did prevent the opening up an account so i guess i'm just looking for a place here where dish is violated the language of the settlement agreement well the comparison that comes to mind your honor is that you enter into an agreement with a home security system company when i know i've got a question my question is where in the tell me the language specifically the dishes i mean i want you to literally read the language and say this is one will not force impossible problems this is an impossible problem dish can't go out unless they go out hired great action for breach of contract it should be read in the context in which to settlement agreement was entered into and incorporated by reference in the st to wear out the paragraph and knowledge of it that the entire it i'm not concerned about why you didn't object my question is is was there motion based on the trade secrets or was it on the fact that when i saw that i thought well maybe there some security number two in there i don't understand what we're to do with the case in which everything relevant seal your honor did prevented  in and address some of the issues that were raised by the court with respect to the settlement agreement and i specific provision the record reflect that prior to the parties entering into the settlement agreement this represented to plaintiff counsel that we could not prevent a rd party from submitting an application so all parties were aware at the time of execution that this would not be able to stop somebody attempting to i number and as soon as it of paying the social security number once a credit or inquiry was polled in the sense of an online application where only four digits it immediately stopped any further somebody was and why would anyone agree to an obligation and make a promise that was impossible to carry out your honor i do not have an answer for  used the plate the actual name actual address actual phone number actual date of birth and actual four digits you're telling me that would not put you on notice to not get a credit report at that point is an awesome i understand the system that i my question my question you have to show a legitimate business purpose for obtaining for having been furnished this consumer reports under the statute correct how is that a legitimate purpose if you know if this person is said to you and sue you and says i don't want services there's a fraudster using my information i affirmatively don't want services you sign an agreement with her that you're going to check for services and she has given they've given you were given all the information other than the last four you're telling me that would not your client at that point would know would still be allowed as a legitimate purpose to get a consumer report legitimate business purpose to request a consumer report if you had if you had the right name right address and telephone number but wrong date of birth and only the last four is they've given you your name address telephone number a date of birth in this case the wrong one and the last four digits of the security number you know the person is the question is is that enough information to tell you at that point we should not be digging around this legitimate purpose but that's not where we are we're at the point when you know that a specific person has sued you for using the information and that you didn't agreement with and you know does not want your services and you even flag that person and you have a file with that person's information so that person uses some significant combination of that very information that you have in your file isn't that it's not a legitimate purpose no i disagree because the settlement agreement understand that is is it a legitimate business purpose and every single instance even a dish knows that four times previously someone used that exact same information it was all that was fraudulent in order to get services number five is ok but i'm number six and time number seven let's say this exact same thing happened again with the exact same information that was given tomorrow after we've had this appeal had this litigation as a settlement agreement and it's happened for four or five years in a row of us part of the procedure is to protect somebody from the damages that we've determined that there's not an issue in itself that the process itself is on file violating the s t r a a legitimate business purpose is to combination of your information is used to make sure that it is this person that they're trying to get the information of this person and to prevent it from happening in other words because a settlement agreement give you a legitimate business purpose about point to some agreement does not new machine with over three hundred and sixty five dollars credit reports and she would be deemed on your credit score three hundred and sixty five times and that doesn't violate the settlement agreement you  january two thousand and eighteen on the one and we will move that within seven days of notification by we we we got pinged internally that somebody attempted  reasoning coding is worthy of being made into law with i'm not sure on the stand how that's going to work your honor to be honest i don't know honor this cannot rely on hypothetical manipulations of information to give it the right to violate the fair credit reporting act when the same correct information has been used on line  every application that's ever been submitted using this is dumb on case information as noted by judge carnes and also addressed by a judge a lot the concern here is that dish has put in place no procedure to comply with the fair credit reporting act the record shows that and under dishes current procedure it could access this is democracy as private credit report every single day for three hundred and sixty five dollars days and dish would still say that's not a violation but that's not the law the legitimate business needs permissible purpose is an exception it's not the rule further as this court addressed whether the settlement agreement gave the issue some legitimate business all purpose under the fair credit reporting act because it didn't show up in that list similarly here the avoidance of litigation by breaching a settlement agreement is not permissible purpose under the fair credit reporting act and we rushed down our briefs with respect to the issues of damages and unless your honor you have any further questions we request that summary judgment be reversed and remanded back to the trial court