can i ask a question about this and it made me start by saying i agree with your plain text reading of the statute but we have carvalho we also have dennis and dennis tells us that a failure to time so it may be clear i agree with you in the plain language interpreter haitian i'm asking you to tell me how we get around dennis which says not withstanding the plain language the failure to conduct an investigation doesn't give rise to a cause of action consumers greater access to information about the investigations and or credit information even beyond that you know in the case of ramirez versus trans union along with support the that the contents when in the intent of the things are based on the content of what was provided as opposed to whether or not it was provided at all they are part and parcel of the same provision and so i think there is really no way to distinguish between the two when it comes to whether you should that is correct but we think that there's no reason i thought is your honor there may be no reason to distinguish i don't know that was my question is there is a reason to think that somebody who never got a notice at all may so have suffered a greater statutory injury and somebody who got a notice with insufficient explanation we think in either case if there is no accuracy the know that there is an absence of injury in both cases i think that the courts language in carballo controlled here but even if it didn't there's a good reason why it should every case on which you know a case is apprentice for ally has held that you have to have an accuracy both to establish civil liability under the reinvestigation provisions and then also turning to the proper notice and that makes sense when you look at the purposes that drive the s t r a the purpose really is to prevent against transmission of inaccurate information that's really the that apply regardless of whether there's an accuracy or not the f t c and other agencies still have the ability to try to police that but when it comes to the question of what should happen here where a consumer tries to hold a c r a the nature of the an accuracy in that case was severe so that wasn't the case that actually supports a finding that this case should proceed because here there's absolutely no through that with both foreign and obsessed trick there was no ultimate inaccuracy in our credit has never previously applied that requirement to this particular provision correct your argument that we should i understand i mean as a factual question we have replied to this provision before statutory relationship between the reinvestigation provisions and the prognosis provisions here the notice provisions are triggered by the existence of the reinvestigation and the core of the interest that the statute is intended to address is making sure that evidence  that the consumer reports are accurate if there is no inaccuracy then the key concerns that drove the enactment of the statute don't even come into play violations in this particular case would actually harm or present a material risk of harm to such interests and it's hard to see how here the fact that both individuals didn't get the letter and i point out that in fact martin when she followed up did get a letter  a nd letter confirming the results the reinvestigation but when we're talking about what these specific procedural violations whether they actually harm or present a true risk of harm the interests of the statute were designed to protect don't even come into play so in this particular case what they're alleging doesn't come into the real area of concern statute could could your client if you prevail in this case adopt a policy of never so i think that sort of gets into the fact that the essary isn't a strict liability statute you know even when it comes to reinvestigation it simply requires a redo of the investigation so there isn't liability for c r a even where there is an extra say if mistakes to happen and that's why the f d r is written the way that it is that's why it's written as not imposing strict liability and that's why courts in looking at this have limited the suits that can be brought by private plaintiffs to those where there's an actual