proceed please the court this case involves the harm caused by defendants collection letter which do not plaintiff's opportunity to manage their debts based on clearing on through information about the c before we address the merits we do need to think about standing to sue and as as you know the district judge said that this was the very same standing issue  that was involved in marketing and that larkin is now under advisement before a different panel of this court i want to ask you if you could articulate as clearly as you can what injury your clients suffered they suffered that they were on able to make a decision as to the management of their guidance based upon  information regarding the amount of the debts what decision a decision as to whether to pay how much to pay which debts to pay the consumers to make those decisions as to how to use their scarce financial resources so you might actually own a low credit a low interest rate card st instead of a high interest rate card something like that could be one way it could be two if they know they're certainly aware of there's different theories of how to manage one way is exactly as your honor said there's another method  where in order to do it you pay off the small balances st so you start feeling good about paying them off even though they might be in a lower interest rates paying higher interest rates st but the combination of this debt and presumably it's the one they paid st and their injury is that some other debt with a higher interest rate was left outstanding and interest therefore running are interest rates and the injury was that we were we really would have paid this one  mr stern i'm asking for some concrete injury and i certainly can understand the argument we pay debt a thinking that that was the best debt to pay big but because of lack of information that was wrong we should have paid debt be and our injury is the difference in the interest rates running on these debts is there any concrete claim of that sort i didn't see it in the briefs  to assure the court that article three injury in fact exists and how much can be elaborated later on you certainly asserted the informational injury and then we have issue is there some concrete injury in fact behind that or is it more like serious where i would have made any difference if somebody had told her about the interest because she wasn't going to do anything with that information anyhow to see it insists on not just information out there you know like might be interested in reading you know the weather report for san francisco or something it's information that matters the how was it something to remote and so i think we get into this this problematic area of the area that spokeo spends most time on which is this discussion about procedural violations right but before you bring out the time by the way i mean you're you're way down i might need to give you some more i need you to answer me the question why they didn't do exactly what miller calls for state the total amount due interest and other charges as well as principal on the date the dunning letter was sent that's that's what was done here  inclusion of the safe harbor language was not done but it's been said over and over again that that isn't mandatory it's not there in the statute it's maybe if you just want to have belt and suspenders you put that in but it doesn't mean the letters without it are defective so so why isn't that even if we do get over standing and reach the merits why isn't that a complete answer to  and twenty three dollars is the principal that they did not reflect the interest of already had accrued in that in that amount so that's number one whether they even comply with with with miller that that component of miller i think a fair reading of the complaint under twenty six standard says they did not but let's go further to your question all of the cases that have dealt with this have talked because they disclosed the dynamic nature of the debt and that's always been the situation there is no there are no cases that whole other than the district court here the dollars and that's exactly what's going on here they're saying his pay this amount but that's not the amount that clears the debt and that was the concern that the nd circuit had when it followed this court's decision in miller applied  there on behalf of finance system of green bay i want to begin by just stating that going back to the complaint here and the appellant in this case is now raising arguments and making statements that are completely  bounds of the complaint the complaint says nothing about whether or not interest was in fact accruing there is no allegation that interest was accruing there was no allegation that this is only the principle and that there is some other other  interest and i know other than your you make this point your brief and obviously it's just twelve b six which is which is a notice standard i take it that wisconsin law does permit  the imposition of this five percent interest rate for this type of debt so wouldn't it be a fair reading a fair inference from the complaint that of the principal of the debt is certain amount of money that  interest can be added i mean you have early on because the opposite your brief states very flatly we weren't ever going to apply any interest charge understood and it seemed to me that sounded more like a summ judgment sort of argument on a twelve your honor i mean i think i'm there either way we look at it the reality is what is played here and even if the state allows interest to accrue if it's permissible under state law there are a myriad of reasons the interest may not accrue on the debt it can be because the creditor disallows it because the collection agency for their own policy does not assessed interest there are a lot of reasons it may not interest and to date  too many you know maybe somebody does run their business that way but you know this is a medical practice and you know the letter shows four separate five separate charges excuse me  and you know i don't know why we should read a complaint with the somewhat counterintuitive notion that debtors of the medical practice can sit around for months if not years and wind  up still paying just the principle do and have a free loan so to speak from from the organization well i think your honor i think that there in lies the core issue here which is that unsophisticated consumer does presume to understand it has a rudimentary understanding of the law of finances and i understand that interest may or may be assessed on a debt is it fails to pay debt that is within the common knowledge of an unsophisticated consumer so there's i don't disagree we can about that actually but there's a big difference between a five percent interest rate or a treasury interest rate or a lot of credit cards an eighteen percent or a twenty one percent interest rate so looking if this number ninety two dollars twenty three cents represents just the principal and there is interest lurking around there the unsophisticated consumer isn't going to know which rate applies they may generically assume interest but why isn't this material and potentially  damaging information if you don't know it well a couple of things one there is no allegation in the complaint that this is only the principal amount that's simply not pled and  nothing as to the balance that it's played what it's played is that it doesn't disclose the amount may increase it doesn't even plead that the amount is increasing or will increase it just says that that needs to be in there irrespective of whether or not it actually is so it puts the collection agency in a very difficult position so they disclose that it may increase when in fact it's not going to it's much safer and more accurate to convey concrete information which is the debt is what the debt is on the date that it is sent and that is the most accurate and complete way to disclose the amount of the debt to the consumer which is what was done here and it's consistent with the court's prior cases in the th circuit  by your argument that it's impossible i'm not saying anybody has to put the miller language in but at a minimum if the disclosure the interest lay charges and other charges the amount due on the day you pay may be greater you don't have to put a dollar amount i mean anybody's ever paid off a car loan would notice you know if you pay it within a certain number of days it's this amount of money but if you don't pay within those days it's going to be some other amount of money it's a moving target stuff just the nature of of interest accruing i mean i'm worried about this is a pleading thing we have to standing discussion that's a different thing can we show that there is injury in fact to brazil from not getting this information that we've discussed but if you didn't your assumption is that because you put ninety two dollars twenty three cents down that was the amount you were going to take in full satisfaction of the debt and it seems to me that's not clear in the record and i don't think you as a representative of a collection group would want any kind of waiver theory that if you don't alert people  t interest might be added on to that you waive the right to collect it and you have to take just stated amount in satisfaction no and i don't think that that's necessary i think that you know what happened in this case you don't have a record of because it's a twelve b six but i think one of the law whether or not something may inevitably happen in the future is not the requirement that must be followed by a collection agency and the th circuit has acknowledged that you  not required to foreshadow what may or may not happen someday in the future you must only state what is true and accurate on the date that the letter was sent and that is what was done here and there's no allegation that that's not true and by making  the collection agency provide disclosures that don't really convey concrete information or or that is specific to the particular debt has the potential to create much more confusion than simply stating the  amount that is due on the date the letter is sent and so in this case we have no allegation outside that that there is anything that is incorrect about that and that's the crucial aspect of this case is that what about the letter was inaccurate false or misleading and there is no allegation of that it simply says a disclosure that there's no allegation was even required or needed wasn't there and there's you know in the same way that this is fails under the case  because of that it also fails and standing because there was absolutely no allegation of harm here it is the arguments by counsel are not included in the complaint at all there is no allegation that she would have done anything differently if that information would have been in there or that there was any inkling that it would have impacted or created any injury at all so so so i can let me just say i think it's interesting because there are a lot of pressures in the law do where you've got to you have a long section describing all of the adverse things that are going to happen to somebody as a result of the legal violation they are suing about before standing is all right and there's always been a concern that a standing is not the same thing as termination on the merits the at the complaint stage it's really more about the allegations there are allegations fairly read that the number on the letter didn't really represent the full amount she was oh she had to pay that it was just the principle i know some of those words weren't used but how generously one reads the complaint really gets into some of these bigger policy issues and i think what you're actually arguing for is very long  pleaded very generally in the sense of i didn't get the information and then it would be the defendant's burden under rule twelve b one to say the information you didn't get didn't matter was any such motion file using the twelve b one motion as a means to attack the complaint as written the argument that was made in our in our lack of jurisdiction argument is that nothing that was  impacted her decision or response to that to the debt that was the core of the argument there is no alan how how would one tell right the potential injury articulated by mr stern is that if you don't know about interest you might end up paying the wrong debt by mistake because if she believes i guess it's hard to even get in the mind but he believes that there was interest occurring but there was no that flows or he would have paid would have contacted the collection agency i mean we have or that in the th circuit saying that part of what we have here is at the c p a already provides safeguards for the consumer in the form of the statutory rights and protections included so that they can call if they think that they dispute the validity or the amount dow ok and i put different i gather i gather from your answer that the answer in to be brief is no you didn't ask the district judge to hold a rule twelve the one hearing at which he would decide whether the lack of information mattered to an actual decision no i mean we've moved or lack of jurisdiction under twelve b one on the allegation that there was no impact on her response to get that but it wasn't a separate hearing it was part of the motion  ok i think we actually are out of time for you ms clinton will be on the same topic in the next argument to you and also with mr stern so i will thank you for your presentation and mr stern you had run out of time but i think i'm just going to call time on this and we will move on to case number six which is