requirement of the eps you're right so can i just just suggest as a structural matter it seems to me that a court needs to have jurisdiction at all times we've been talking jurisdiction this morning so if it were to turn out that before a class action settlement was approved there had never been article three standing or one of the other criteria for subject matter jurisdiction i don't see that there's anything for the court to do except dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction your case is a little more complicated since you had a couple of grounds or might have been a ground based on  other law for which there was a real based on spokeo in the other things for which there was a real article three problem you have your adverse action claim where the article three analysis may be different but  don't agree to the extent your brief argued that you know once you get in the don't or you get to ignore article three problems because it's a class action doesn't work for me so i i think you need to start with the second point first and let's see if we have some kind of case and if we do have a case for which it's folky oh and other relevant precedents would support proper standing then we can think about  to disclose to the applicant a copy of the consumer report in a written summary of rice when that decision is based on that report now i take it that it's your position that these are be the employer and the consumer not not the credit reporting it should but the employer to consumer relationship this is not about accuracy as much as it's about a chance to plead for mercy a chance to put that adverse report in context or what the common law might have called confession and avoidance but it's not it's not just to say oh that reports a mistake it could be it could be perfectly accurate and there would still be a function to be performed that that's correct or all you'll hear from the happily that there is an inaccuracy element to be three but there isn't and as you just pointed out the point of the actual statute is to give the applicant an opportunity not only to dispute if there is an inaccuracy but also to explain or put into context the record itself and in this case that's particularly important because this was an arrest record that was disclosed by the consumer reporting agency at the time the employer received the consumer report there had been no decision on the merits of that arrest and so of course a job applicant would have a number of at well nations at that point i'm including i'm not guilty to the employer but in this particular three even even if guilty you know  baguette you know or something i could imagine that there would be things somebody might say absolutely and in this case your honor this robertson did have an explanation that she was not given the opportunity to provide but on top of that not only was the report required to be given to the applicant but also a written summary of right says this court is already aware with other of siri cases the consumer reporting agency is highly regulated there are many avenues for a consumer to dispute or challenge or address information but that's really consumer to credit agency more than in their it there are three actors here right there's the credit agency there's the user meaning the employer and there's the consumer so the consumer might tell the credit agency you put the wrong thing down you know i wasn't late on that payment or you know i've never had that credit card or whatever that's correct in the end because this situation can recur or present itself in other areas it's important that the consumer have the opportunity to fix that mistake or address that because of the or she is looking for a job again or applying for a loan as the case may be it's important that information has been corrected enough today with  injury if she were an appetite in a written report but on the phone the person who checked the job after said we've got to report we see that you have been arrested for you know such and such and you know it's against our company's policy to hire someone with a record so she was told the relevant information even if not provided the written report and said do you have anything to say for yourself i think she would have an injury your honor because the report itself most consumer reports are fairly detailed they're fairly extensive and to have a brief phone conversation with someone who in my experience only tells an applicant it's because of your criminal background doesn't really apply forward the opportunity to the applicant to address all the elements of the consumer report and i'll give you an example a lot of times an employer will have a policy that prohibits a felony for example but maybe a wells a misdemeanor a consumer report will specify those classifications and often in my experience gets them wrong but that's why it's important that a physical copy  report be given to the applicant so he or she can actually address what's on the paper in front of the employer not just take the employer's synthesis of that data and that's what happened in this case and that's what gave rise to article three standing miss roberts and never got a copy of her report and i want to go you know i was the class to find what's the technical definition of class membership there were two subclasses of settlement and this case was settled one c case was not settled the representative of the defendant reached a settlement agreement but a class action is settled only with the approval of the judge and that was never received but i would wish you to address my question yes your honor one class was defined as individuals who did not receive a copy of their consumer report in the summary of rights for an adverse action was taken based on that information the other class was defined as individuals who had received a particular disclosure but that consumer report would be obtained is an adverse action essential to be in the class yes you are and how so is there someplace you can point me to arc so i can if you can't find it right away i would suggest you give us a keep up a mental filing afterwards that shows the docket number and reproduces the relevant document absolutely your honor sheet of look let me tell you why i'm asking with since we're dealing with a class action that many of the arguments that appear in your brief seem to me to differentiate your client from other potential classmates and then where you're raising the question is there standing for the other class members is your client a proper representative of the class so defined in order to figure out whether a class action can proceed we need to figure out whether the class members ha standing and not just whether there is something particular to the class representative that might give that person standing but nobody else if i could address trotters question in the context of the b b three or the protection claims pacifically as part of settlement negotiations the parties swapped information and identified thirty seven individuals against whom adverse action was taken based on the consumer report without first being provid may please the court my name is jeff beck and i am for the only i wanted solutions it's our contention that the district court properly determined that miss roberts and work standing because she did not plead a concrete injury in fact but i think what we are what i'm suggesting is that we have these two different types of claims and i take it from the way the briefing is proceeding that ms robinson isn't proceeding with the claim for which i would probably agree with you one hundred percent just the notice claim because under spokeo just a bare procedural right doesn't doesn't cut it but the adverse action claim on the other hand which may have other deny that something is wrong but you can also provide additional context in the supreme court in the cleveland board of education against loudermilk case talked extensively about the value of the opportunity to present your side story even where the facts are clear because you can appeal to the discretion of the decision maker this is not at all just a naked procedural right on the adverse action side of the case what i would what i would say you even with an informational injury when they were when the court failed or when the the defendant failed to provide the information they're still had to be some other element and that's what she's played it she didn't get the job she had the job offer offer withdrawn there's an adverse consequence to this it's not the same as the spokeo situation but that in both of the the informational cases that are cited by the supreme court the harm was not simply the ability to obtain the inability obtain information but the inability to to use that information for what it was intended examiner to supply isn't that exactly the problem the question is whether you could do something with the information if you can do something with the information that sounds like a real injury if you couldn't do anything with the information it sounds like the lack of an interest and that's why i was interested in who's in the class whether our plaintiff can be representative of that classroom a whole class and so are two different situations the people who put in the people who couldn't do something with the information but in this case she hasn't played that she could have done anything with the information she has and included any of that in her complaint what she's played in her complaint she's played that we obtained it in a consumer report on her the report contained non conviction information an allied officer advised her she was terminated because of the information in her report and that we did not provide her a copy of that report she doesn't allege that any time that she wasn't told about the substance of the report and we would suggest that it and in fact she was it's not in the pleadings but just to answer your honor's question earlier your comment earlier example but she also doesn't aware that she wasn't aware of it allege unless well i mean this is at the pleading stage i mean maybe as a defense your client would say we just have a rigid rule you know that we don't care what anybody's reasons are for anything as soon as we find information consumer report that we regard as adverse we declined to go forward with hiring her or something that this is a very early stage and if we're going to be supplementing on your behalf or certainly should be seeing reasonable plausible inferences from her allegations well respectfully we don't believe that she did plea that she wasn't provided the information she was she played that she was a provided a copy of the report that's the point she's been obviously in for his mr dooley was saying having a copy of the report to take judge barrett's example is different from just an informal chat on the phone saying we've got some you know conviction information on you but she doesn't plead that she couldn't write any information that would have changed the decision in this case and that's where she do that she hasn't had an opportunity to have the conversation to appeal to her discretion but i can't she can't be required to say it would have secured the job for her that that's not consistent with the cleveland board of education notion and nothing else but we're talking about not just cleveland board of education and southwest general contractors where the supreme court holds that loss of a chance is a real injury so if you put a headwind against minority contractors in your contracting scheme and they lose a chance to bid they have suffered a real injury even though they care trial they would have got the contract due to their own important principle so one can understand the complaint alleging loss of a chance which would be an injury maybe that's not a good way to understand a complaint that sounds like what you're saying now but it not easy to just assume that loss of a chance couldn't be better well the courts tell us that you have to look at the the concrete you have to consider the concrete interest that congress sought to protect when it in when it enabled when it when it broke the both cases state they say that with that one concord congress ought to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting and congress plainly sought to curb the dissemination of false information by adopting procedures designed to decrease that risk and the supreme court to provide an example of a bare procedural violation which would result in no harm that we think is very similar to what we have here the example was where consumer reporting agency failed to provide the required notice to a user of the agency's consumer information to you where they are mission we are a lawyer the consumer the statute has different levels of protection for different actors in the system and the consumer needs the information whether there's an accuracy issue or not to facilitate that conversation with the employer or the bank if it's a happens to be a lending situation with the user who is in that middle position so the interests are different depending on who is implicated but if that if the interest of congress is to ensure a fair and accurate credit report and to assure that the employees aren't making decisions based on incorrect information then i think there's more that she needs to plead here than how do someone know whether a court is correct or incorrect if they don't happen will she certainly had that information she could have an information i'm not saying at that time but at the time she filed her complaint she filed an amended complaint after all that information had been provided to where individuals have sought to amend complaints later on in the courts have held that in this court has held that it's not appropriate where the the employee or the plaintiff has not told the court how they would have meant the complaint to state the cause of action or we don't believe she stated a concrete injury because all she's saying is that it had convictions non conviction information on it which she doesn't dispute as being accurate and we didn't give her a copy of the report is a sure thing she didn't have a chance to explain she does that's a reasonable inference even if she doesn't in so many words say that we don't really you know we don't have fact pleading in the federal courts surely a reasonable inferences and if i had had that information allies we could have had a conversation i would have had a chance to use the southwest in general contractors language why would make two points in response that one didn't she doesn't say that in her complaint but it's a reasonable  hoc rationale which is not what was going on at the time you got this report so my point is i guess i could just sum up this is that i don't believe that she's pled any harm to herself based on the facts of case because of the the fact that she eventually pled guilty to those she doesn't contest that the accuracy of that information and she doesn't say anything about what context she would provide that would that would make allied where they could even that she could even offer to make an employer change its mind all right but thank you thank you you have a copies yes you're the only thing that i didn't get a chance to talk about earlier that i want to touch upon briefly as we're also asking this court to follow the rationale that was a spell's by the third circuit in ehrhardt versus horizon and the six roger but again i think the standing analysis shifted quite a bit in both their heart and whitlock to focus on the personal stake that the class representative had in the settlement remit that was reached in the fiduciary obligation of the district court under rule twenty three to look out for the abs class members which in this particular case were going to receive the maximum statutory damages for the b b three violation i see my time is and then you are no questions i see none thank you very much thanks to both counsel thank you for you will take the case