issue and the district court in the wake of the supreme court's spokeo vs robbins decision found that mitchell alleged only a bare procedural violation and therefore doesn't have article specifically that she was confused though i would point the court two paragraphs thirteen thirty seven of the first and then a complaint in paragraph thirty she alleges that the form was unclear paragraph thirty seven she alleges that the extraneous information overshadows the consumer report disclosure so we do think that the possible confusion could be inferred from the allegations as is absolutely let me just look at like thirty so it says the previous report disclosure that defendant provided to plaintiff in the putative disclosure class members as part of the application process willfully violated the f d r a by not being clear and conspicuous and i included an extraneous information such that the disclosure cannot be said to stand alone so that's seems to be explaining why if i awaited the f going to be confusion that mitchell must expressly allege that she was confused because of this extremist information we request leave to amend to add those allegations  you have to have you have to show some injury it's not enough to to allege a bear procedural violation which is really all that's in the complaint and they and siad they're there after said it's on a different complaint which which does it make that's why they hadn't come out a i'm asking you know really curious and i'm just not sure about the issue of knowing that we needed to amend to express lee plead confusion if that is indeed going to be the test so that was so you had to show some the f series disclosure requirement the stablish is substantive rights to information and when a person is not provided the information in the form that congress said that they had to be you should be saved from having false information disseminated so that the two the two injuries they saw that f d r i was trying to prevent was the injury of having false information disseminated and the injury of very heart of those harms that congress was trying to prevent when an act of the the the f c r a was enacted to prevent against the risk that false information would be disseminated or that persons would authorize background checks you know unknowingly that was the point congress didn't condition the protections in the s c r a on the ultimate inaccuracy of the report  not allege additional harms beyond the deprivation of the information that congress entitle to her to receive that is the harm and is there any case that supports  and persuasively i would just point out that the issue in spokeo was not about this background check this closure it was under a separate section of the act which dealt with consumer reporting agencies having to implement reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the reports that they're generat so the issue there was whether spokeo those procedures had been sufficient enough to ensure that the information was accurate on that point i would refer the court to justice thomas concurrence in spok which i think makes the point quite clearly that there is a difference in the article three analysis between public rights and private rights and he drew the distinction there that one of the claims in the spokeo case was that spokeo didn't put in eight hundred number on its website as as required and justice thomas pointed out that you know that's a that's a requirement to the public at large but when you're talking about a private right  congressionally established private right owed to a person once congress does its job and creates that private right and that right is violated the person who had that right violated has standing to sue that we should look to what was known at common law and at the close is at something that was known as common law i think absolutely it is that the point of this disclosure is to make sure the people know what they're authorized  consumer reports are very invasive so by not having a standalone disclosure that certainly goes to raise the risk that people are going to have their privacy invaded knowing that is absolutely a common goal issue but the concrete harm is the deprivation of the information the congress said mitchell was entitled to in the form that she said she was entitled and with that i'd like to reserve my last minute or so  may please the court i'm callin burke attorney for appellee winco foods as the court has point out this case is really very simple appellant does not have constitutional standing because she cannot state a concrete harm this is what the district court factual allegations of confusion anything that would make amendment not futile she says here i was i find the authorization in the authorization is as i clearly understood she never once alleges besides just buzzwords conclusionary statements by counsel that the disclosure overshadows and distracts never an alleged fusion isn't our standard it wouldn't be possible to to alleged facts allege that she herself was confused didn't understand what she was authorizing then that's really key was the language in the disclosure to make her confused enough that she wouldn't have known that she was getting a consumer report about her and there is no fact this factual allegation that he has identified that she could say that so this the man ticks or plot possibility of alleging confusion is a good academic exercise but if you look really about what he said in the briefing and what he said below even at oral argument to the district court judge he said ok well correct there is nothing in the disclosure form that can be misinterpreted so he's really not prevented presented any factual allegation or you should say tremendous appropriate it is still just based on the bare procedural violation of a concrete harm which is not enough i want to go back to what he's really asking which is to expand spokeo and even sired beyond what their holdings are as this court recently found in due to versus state farm you have to show that the opponent was actually harm or had a material risk of harm although that was a pretty adverse action notice of claim the same type of rejection should happen here to pounce argument that you should expand current president did not require a waiver and the premise of that case was that liability wafer was enough to infer confusion here there is the crucial distinction that you don't have a liability waiver and the one sentence just one cent of a lot of extraneous information that she's highlighting in the disclosure form is an explanation of an investigative consumer report so it's not apples to apples the fact that she's trying to compare a one sentence explanation of an investigative consumer report to liability waiver to  science premise that you can infer confusion really doesn't make sense that it's really expanding side well beyond what it was meant to do if you can infer plausibly that there is more than just a bare procedural violation the concrete harm of either information or privacy then sure she could proceed that case is completely different she's never alleged that she was actually harmed in fact she was hired she never alleged that she wouldn't have signed the disclosure form but for this one sentence and she never  there was any sort of informational injury beyond just her comment that it was not in the proper format now the fair credit reporting act should be looked at very specifically and not infer obligations on an employer that the statutory tax does not provide for it does actually provide that you can put an investigative consumer report disclosure with a general consumer report disclosure state as for the information on privacy harm the information harm is absent here because nothing in spokeo suggests that receiving the information in an improper format automatically requires automatically present standing and that's what no risk here that she unknowingly provided her consent to get the consumer report in fact she cannot allege that and has not allege that not in any of the briefing billowed not in the first minute complaint not at oral argument below and not in these briefings she just uses a lot of buzz words but that is not sufficient to say that she was in fact harmed that any negative or wrong information was disseminated and she received the job  never presented on the consumer report the criminal history on her consumer report was clear so the felony didn't appear when she was disclosing in the store i was a convicted felon they followed up with her and asked her and terminated her for that reason nothing without permission that was enough to give rise to sue you didn't need to show any additional harm beyond that so the common law can create legally protected interest so can the constitution like free speech and so can statutes congress created a private right to a standalone clear and conspicuous disclosure in order to further the f series purpose no additional harm is required other by which litigants and courts second guess congressional judgement and decide which harms and rights congress identifies are too trivial to matter that's not what article three standing