state that plaintiff's allegation is a made up speak german because the website parent is this famous herbs dot com said  website was owned by or is a statement of the defendants it's a rd party website yes i'm going to and you say in your interest and you say well the website says it relies on information from them but that's not a statement by them and it doesn't and you haven't identified the information from them that the web site reported the relies on so why is the website of any relevance at all all web site is it considered to be  healer you could rely on you can rely on the only good book which i don't doubt on a doc don't doubt that my question is can you rely on a rd party's description of what he thinks for making  fifty two and it says reasonable consumers knew that they controlled me what does that mean reasonable well how do you have a reasonable why is it plausible that reasonable consumers knew that they control why is it plausible that defendants ever take off the reasonable consumers just assume that the allegation is defendants or troll their place decided statements about pomegranate balls and w w famous herbs dot com why is that possible regarding nine b nine b analysis because the doesn't work in other words didn't work for her or there's some sort of general scientific evidence that it doesn't work for x number of people or by this court it requires scientific evidence or scientific study experiments and not the test or anecdotal evidence then and one of those if you can consider that as i want to understand your going to understand your question let's assume for a moment that the rd party website works that you can read you can rely on it here it says recommended for women experimental portal symptoms when i'm looking at the asterisk and there was a who should take it and there's a list of people who should take it does it is it your position that those things or or can be reasonably interpreted as a as now st with respect to the famous herb's dot com website mr hong did not connect or part bird the plaintiff did not connect that website to mack unsatisfactorily for the district court the district court to be affirmed on that point i do want to visit one particular issue there didn't plausibly allege that was your website he done as a way that it purports to quote from your information booklet and if the quotes from your information booklet are accurate why can't they be the basis of these claims well there's no allegation that they are accurate your i know but now we're talking about plausibility and we have a website that cites to a specific page of your information booklet he can't conduct discovery because we're on a motion to dismiss so why doesn't it meant that why doesn't that make it plausible that your information book would says those things with your responses your honor st that there's no allegation that he needs discovery to find the information but i asking trying to answer the question i'm asking the question is why doesn't this citation on this website your information booklet with a page site make it plausible that your information booklets as precisely what this website but can i at least start out with the proposition that your information booklet contains these kinds of representations i don't think so your honor not not or at least absent an allegation that the book that exists and that it says these things i don't like that we see here's the problem you know whether the book would exists or not the book what does exist the book that says something what it says may not be sufficient to support their claims but the notion that if the motion to dis stage he has to do more than produce a website that cites that purports to quote from your book good so little trouble isn't me well i'm happy to concede your honor that if the booklet says what the rd party reports that it says that those statements could be true if they are why don't they support his claims well st of all the rd they may not be labeling and again we need to know more about the book which to know whether or not it accompanies a product and therefore could qualify as labeling under the federal statutes and regulations here that's the st issue the nd issue goes to the content of the statements as you know plaintiff here has to fury's based on this language the st theory is that these statements make what are impermissible disease claims under federal law and the nd is that they make misleading structure function claims under federal law all begin with the structure function claims there is no allegation that these structure function claims are misleading because plaintiff hasn't offered sufficient allegations and or rule nine b that they were untrue in her instance anyone else's interests instance and this returns to the removers has reduced issue that you were discussing with plaintiff's counsel earlier saying look i have insomnia and it wasn't cured when i took this product that is recommended for people with menopausal symptoms including insomnia is not an allegation that the recommendation for those individuals is a misleading structure function statement as to the disease claims place counsel is correct that in some circumstances a reference to insomnia or chronic fatigue could be construed as a disease claim under federal law but in this instance where it's a part of a laundry list of other men apostle symptoms and where the relevant federal regulator has made disclaimer that says something about the f d a not having in any way you prove the revaluated and substance indicating that the f d a doesn't endorse any of  and ninety two of the e r as well as page one hundred and nine of yarn if you look at one hundred and eighty nine you'll see that there is a box at the top that page direction and then we have the asterisk these statements have not been evaluated by the food and drug  ministration this product is not intended to diagnose treat cure or prevent any disease that's the required language of the disclaimer the disclaimer appears on the product in the disclaimers linked to the text describing the product by an asterisk as required by federal law i do want to visit the melendez issue just briefly as you know the district court dismissed all claims based on thirteen products that plaintiff did not purchase on the ground that she lacked article three standing to pursue those claims and i understand there's a question now whether that was error under the melende case or into the b k plays from just a few weeks ago that apply to wondrous it was not melinda's does say that the article three standing analysis concludes once we've determined that the named plaintiff has standing to pursue at least one class claim but it  must not it cannot be the rule that that means that any plaintiffs any putative class representative could bring any sort of class claim and that was why does not address a boy's maleng dress suggests at the class certification stage you may be a terrible representative you made there may be lots of reasons not to grant class certification or why should we be parsing those issues at the motions mistake when the differences between the named plaintiff your honor and the unnamed class members that the claims of those particular individuals are significant enough they implicate article three standing in there for the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and therefore they are appropriate to be addressed at the motion today in a state are they why doesn't see my problem is you may be right as a matter of policy more anderson appear to be widely accepted among our our sister courts but since we start off with it has as a law hundreds makes a x s freshly different conclusion doesn't well i don't want challenge the arizona penal systems and added the access to courts they had in that penal system and some of the inmates had particular problem some were a literate some didn't speak english others were in lockdown and weren't permitted to visit the law library and the supreme court said in that case because only the illiterate inmates ultimately were able to show an injury in that case they didn't have article three standing to pursue claims right pointed to case was not to smashed at the motion to dismiss stage that's correct your honor but our the court also actually you don't need to win on the more endurance point in order to prevail in this case to you absolutely not your honor because plaintiff never stated a claim in her individual capacity this court need not reach the claim she attempted to stay on the basis of the products if she did not purchase three standing and davidson subsequently as we've argued our brief and i don't intend to belabor this but we believe that the district court's analysis with respect to injunctive relief was precisely in line with david's in the district court correctly determined that whether or not the plane of had article three standing to pursue injunctive relief under davidson and lyons and the other cases turned on whether or not she was likely to encounter the products again i e whether or not she intended to purchase the products again and there are no allegations in this case that she doesn't tend to purchase any of these products again those allegations were present and that there was no reason nothing in the plaintiff's complaint to suggest otherwise i e to to call into question the point of sincerity in pleading that she intended to purchase a product to go to she said that it was worthless that's precisely right going to she says they're problem with the injunctive relief claim in this case she says they're worthless if you'd only told me they were worthless i would have bought them but i can't take from that that if i knew they were worthless i'd be happy to buy them in the future but that's precisely what you're on with respect to the other coll that you developed with the plaintiffs counsel during during his argument with respect to whether or not he's adequately pled anecdotal evidence of falsity with respect to these products you were called or the district court discussed this at length and said look all we have in the allegations is that plaintiff visually measure at the spots and wrinkles on her skin and believe that they didn't change in the district court properly in our view said that that's just not enough as anecdotal evidence goes to state a claim for falsity under rule nine b i would like to draw your attention to one other thing that is maybe not apparent from the district court's order the district court complained correctly in our view that plaintiff it not pleaded any facts as to the frequency with which he took these products the duration for which he took these products the amounts in which she took these products it's clear from her allegations both in the body of the complaint and in the exhibits the complaint that she actually bought limited quantities of these products as to the co q ten balls she bought it two months supply and as to the sea balance actually unclear because or her allegations are not consistent she either bought but a two and a half months supply or a four month supply but she says in the complaint that she used the products for about seven months before stopping presumably with some left because she felt like they weren't working result we know we do know even from this record on the pleadings the plaintiff did not use the products consistent with the directions on the products and we would submit that that heavily influences her ability to state a claim based on anecdotal evidence i also don't want however there are other independent reasons for the dismissal of the rico claim there's insufficient allegations of an enterprise there's no allegation that mr hahn actually undertook any fraudulent acts or that he directed any fraudulent acts by other people or that he had the requisite