credit reporting act claims that experience failed to use reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of his information contained in this consumer report and that when he brought this in accuracy to experience attention they failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of his dispute while we were awaiting oral argument this case now after all the briefs were and the court directed the parties to submit simultaneous supplemental briefing on standing and the court asked us to address whether mr last has standing to even sustain this suit and the court asked us to look at it because the irreducible requirement that the plan is that the plaintiff establish standing in order to obtain relief is a threshold issue it's raise for the st time here on appeal but i think that we have a sufficient record to demonstrate that mr last has standing to pursue his claim and to reverse the district court to restore the case to trial try our luck is for i speak only for myself i think our pedro case from twenty seven team supports your argument on standing in this case the evidence was or the evidence here in the light most place to he agency trigger more of an obligation i mean if i'm trying to think about it in sort of the way that judges react to filings  point what is an entity like experience supposed to do i think there will be a different case mr laws or someone in his position would have said here's a copy of the discharge statement without any much detail you've got a response without if you leave what do we what do we do about someone like your honor the f e r a is a remedial statute it is designed to protect consumers it's designed to enable them to correct in accurate information that appears in their consumer report there's no standard like there is in the f t c p a a of the many sophisticated consumer but experian and nation star have a relationship with each other they trade in consumer data they have developed a system by which this consumer data is monetized they make money and profit from the trade in consumer data you ask the question how is experience supposed to know what mr law is disputing through his one paragraph without any evidence a consumer is not expected to do anything other than a prize the consumer reporting agency of the nature of the dispute the inaccurate information and in this case experian already had and was reporting the bankruptcy it receives bankruptcy information and it reported bankruptcy information about m la the evidence also shows that experience never conducts a reactive case and regardless of what it said to mr losses dispute they simply forwarded on to nation star and thus in this kind of closed information loop there is not an opportunity for experience that has an independent reinvestigation obligation to correct its inaccurate reporting unless the very understand it's hard to waters but i just don't see a clear reference to the mortgage there doesn't seem like it's on the basis of the document maybe you can correct me if i'm on about that but i guess i just worry a little bit that a url you asking us to acquire experience parse i don't know sort of ink blot if bankruptcy worse but that's a great question judge and there's a couple things i'd like to say about that st of all no we are not asking experian to go dig around behind records but if they're going to be reporting bankruptcies if they're going to be reporting tradewinds that have been discharged that we have to remember this is a chapter seven discharge and in chapter seven  of the debts are included in the in the discharge unless reaffirmed in mr loftis dispute he explained that he originally reaffirmed it he moved for recision of the reaffirmation it was ordered and thus his account was discharged if experian thinks it's too difficult or it doesn't have time or it doesn't make monetary sense for it to crawl around and look at the actual orders then the f b i has a has an answer for that and that was his experience can't verify the information it must delete it promptly what should experience have done here exist expressively what should have done and what would have been found out if the did it thank you judge the standard here is that experian conduct a reasonable reinvestigation on the jury question i just specifically what should they have done and what what did they have found out simple answer they should have looked at the discharge order and then in ball up the judge just left question have they looked at it like i look at it what would they have i just can't tell i'm looking at this thing and i just can't tell i understand judge if they look if they just heard order is is incapable of being deciphered by experience the s c r a provides instruction if it cannot verify the debt it has to delete it promptly absolutely should have conducted a reinvestigation that would have enabled it to either confirm that that debt was reporting accurately which we know it wasn't looking at a chapter seven just charge knowing that all de but in this case you have not just a general discharge order produce got an additional order with regards to the withdrawal of the reaffirmation so you go back to the questions of my coll far into the docket she or the orders no requirement that experian report any of these items and if it cannot verify the accuracy of the item and it's reporting it must delete it i understand that i thought what if anything you like describe it procedure that experience should be going through saying that experience at the very least had to go look at the bankruptcy done right if it did not want to go look at the bank no i'm not saying that look at bankruptcy docket because the docket is not the bankruptcy record and experian didn't do any of that it has no proceeded to look at any of that so it had to look at the bankruptcy record of your line orders and finally if it wants to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information it's reporting about mr last yes and obtain information directly from furnishers without ever conducting one bit of investigation into whether that information is accurate that it's going to turn around and report about consumers have gotten a chapter seven just charged and are entitled to their fresh start then it shouldn't report that it should not report that trade line if it cannot assure its accuracy to the maximum possible it sent or it is rogers thank you very much you save your record what does that record show while it shows no credit and isles and the only evidence on the record about whether or not this went to a rd party is that it likely did not if you look at reporting was materially worse and she hasn't done that and nor is we racially artisan where is that where does that come from inter the word it will be standing and it's materially worse than something else because otherwise it doesn't injure or if the if it's that or her credit it's not injury that's the if so should the mortgages going to be on her credit so the question is should it report as this charge which she thinks it should have those are all after it's updated to what he wanted to report so that's out for injury purposes we made the change he said he wants with regard to the inquiries yes or inquiries on his credit report it's described in the sim declaration which again a three hundred and seventy dollars they're all soft inquiries so those might be things like someone who you have an account with doesn't account for you they're not looking at your credit report they're merely looking  within certain credit parameters or things like that or someone to verify your identity by asking you which of the following address is having with that it's not a review for credit or typically and there's no evidence here one says it was discharged one says it wasn't so it's not can i just stop you right there just make sure that we all get our terminology straight you use that at that point they're confronted with a legal dispute why isn't that  because the question of whether or not it's discharged is not something that is we're in your iris hit at this your questioning earlier it's not something that is there's not a court order that says to find out if it's just so there may be instances where you can tell but this was not one of them we had two competing views and experience put the position where it needs to where apparently plaintiff says it the th circuit reference that in the hunt does it they say that they closed the loophole they closed the gap now we can rely on the furniture to reasonably investigate this because they have a legal liability if they get it so experience does what it can do and ask nations are there's no reason to think nation star is not going to adequately investigate this especially since there's legal liability for them if they get it wrong which by the way they paid for or the system worked exactly as congress intended in one thousand nine hundred and six when it passed the amendments but what's not required is for the response to go back to experian inexperience d say oh out for some reason we think nation star was right there was nothing here firstly there is nothing in this record that would have made a suspect that and secondly we as i noted were present of a legal dispute similar to c r a is their conduct the reason more investigation is not more it can do to resolve this dispute between the two parties and that's especially true in this case and i think the kalen cases reference it's a crazy set of facts that i think under i think there's even a question whether nation's stars obligated to unwind under one of the sport's decision and up but the yes i don't quite understand why this isn't a case that would be better educated by a jury because this unique set of circumstances what what should a queen sort of based with this unique set of circumstances what sort of experience not well because solution which is apparently struck your arms and believe that that is not that is not an adequate solution experience already overwhelmed with disputes and if we just delete no discharge or ever gives any clarity and so deleting it is not an option here the complications in the record don't lead one to think it's a jury question at least one minute warning it leads me to conclude only like that there is nothing more that could have been done even had experience tried online this there's no reasonable thing that could have been asked of experience here were to find standing there's no damages here the plaintiff has not demonstrated any other than some conclude statements about emotional distress no credit denials no evidence of risk or went down no evidence that the person bank case that we decided after i came on the court was a case called united states versus time which says that there is no reason per se that a self serving conclusory affidavit cannot give rise to an issue of material the stress claims in the context of consumer protection statutes like this and have cautioned courts to have an ad of caution because it is so easy to manufacture so there is always the why is your point so you know investigation of the consumer dispute that it received from the c r a most consumers when they see something on their consumer report that's inaccurate they immediately go to the furniture but the furniture has no obligation to do an investigation at that point and  liability attaches unless they send the dispute to the consumer reporting agency and the consumer reporting agency has had an obligation to conduct a reinvestigation a reasonable reinvestigation ever since the implementation of the enactment of the consumer fair credit reporting and it always comes back to whether the actual reinvestigation that was done by experian was reasonable and that determination is the jury questions no one hears but you know you really have well at least to my satisfaction you have to explain what experience was supposed to do what what should experience on parrot back what nation star said it could have done a couple things it could have checked the bankruptcy record not just the docket sheep but the record if it found at that point that it was too difficult for it to discern whether mr washes nation star mortgage account had been just charged it should have deleted it and that's not throwing up your hands that's instruction from congress engrossed in the legislation if you can't verify the account delete it the nd thing that it could have done is looked at its own records and the information that it gets from lexis nexis when it publishes bankruptcy the trade line i'm sorry bankruptcy status information within the context of the consumer report the evidence in this case my apologies that the internet here has completely crashed so i had to get out and come back in we couldn't reestablish it so i'll at least going to try to hook up by phone for the rest of the arguments today so my sincere apologies and miss rockets you can continue unless you've already finished and i've got the argument your honor i was stopped mid sentence when it became apparent that you were no longer in the in the call and so i just want to i was answering the court's question regarding what experience should have done or what it could have done and i'm not sure where you got cut off or if i need to repeat myself i think you can just look at the record but what's clear is that a reasonable reinvestigation is a jury in question and the jury should be entitled to see whether this close was going to say next if experian found which it never really argue that it found that mr law shows dispute was inadequate to point in the right direction in fact the evidence to the contrary it understood what the dispute was but it absolutely should have contacted mr last before it verified that the nation star account was reporting accurately it also could have contacted nation star in another type of communication method than this a c d v this automated impersonal you know electronic transit and x nation star did ultimately admit in the course of this case that it reported in accurately and that is evidence that is in the records and i ask you one last question and i know your time is not so i don't want to hold you over but just to help me get my bearings free we've been talking here about experienced obligation after the dispute and i i tend to think about experience obligation hope it's post of your obligation as a sixteen anyone i reinvestigation obligation post dispute is there anything that question but i can answer that question just based on what i know from doing this type of work for a very long time the six hundred and eighty when the requirement that experience maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy is not extinguished when the consumer sends a dispute and so as soon as experian is on notice that this is a disputed trade line and that it might be an accurate it its obligation to fifteen anyone remains to maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum accuracy of that trade line so the obligation remains but does it add anything to the being independent obligations mean that makes sense to me ok that makes  ok i'm out of time if the court has any other questions for me i would be happy to continue talking aright thank you very much for this ruckus and this year we're thank you very much my thanks to the court on behalf of my c want to thank you your honors