follow the second circuit's decision struble and find that she did have standing to bring her claim in the court found that a consumer had standing when certain when she alleged that a credit card issuer had violated the truth in lending by failing to disclose that certain disputes regarding charges had to be in writing or electronically could be affected the court concluded that the plaintiff had standing for this claim finding that a consumer who was not given notice of his obligations is not lending act and the court found that the injury namely the statute for tory violation was sufficient for standing and that the plaintiff was not required to allege any further harm beyond the stashed  similar to the truth in lending act congress inactive the fair debt collection practices act to help consumers make informed decisions about how to respond to debt collection activities and to do this the statute requires through section sixteen ninety two  the debt collector send an initial debt collection notice that among other things educates the consumer regarding the consumer's rights under the statute and how to effectively of surface rights here madison's notice failed to inform the recipients including plaintiff p c s that in order to effectively assert her rights under the statute have the debt validated or pain the identity of the original fetter she had to make that request in writing to the debt collector by omitting the in writing requirement madison's know this warded the informational an educational purposes of the f t c p a a imposed an appreciable risk to harm to consumers and their ability to make informed decisions about whether how to respond to that i saw it as i think it raised an appreciable risk of real harm to her not in general i mean we know what the statute says and what its purpose as what the concrete injury to her she wasn't going to contest this debt or at least we don't have any allegation that she wanted to contest the debt or find make a request for identification of the originator of the tag sure she was there her injury was that she was denied the information that if she wanted to contest it that she would have to make that that's just your writing that's a pure procedural injury right and the actual harm that's the actual injury to her concrete concretely right the denial of information is the injury your honor and the supreme court recognized in spokeo that where procedural harm implicates a contact does implicates a concrete harm to be protected by a statute connected by congress that in some circumstances is enough to have standing and hear the requirement that she have the necessary information for challenging the debt the obligation to make against right well i think the in writing requirement in general is a protection for the debt collectors so that there is proof that the a debtor made a dispute but she's not harmed by not having information she's harmed by not registering the rich the objection properly i think she is harmed by not having the information your honor because as part of the fair debt collection practices act congress was consumed concerned with debt collectors taking advantage of  sophisticated consumers and to to try to alleviate that harm they require the debt collector to provide information regarding the consumers rights under the law and that is what the second circuit found in under the truth in lending act there was no there's nothing in strict distributed solution that suggests that the plaintiff in effectively made a dispute about a credit card charge the second circuit recognized that there is a harm in failing to adequately disclose how a consumer is to dispute if they wanted to make it and that is the type of procedure will injury that by itself because it implicates the concrete interests protected by the statute the congress intended for that is sufficient for spokeo but the harm would occur if she made an objection orally and because they didn't tell her she had to do it in writing she lost the ability to get a stay on any collection efforts but there's no indication she was going to contest it in the first place there's nothing in the complaint if you're given a chance to amending didn't the meant it which i can only assume means she never intended to challenge it she did not challenge that that that your honor your correct but the harm is  the failure to provide the information in the first place and your honor you recognize that in your opinion on remand and geneticists when you when you recognize that when under sixty nine to two g when certain information is not provided to us have nothing to do a stand tonight also had to do with whether or not there was a violation of the to feel or when it got sent back to me because i got reversed your honor i thought i could be wrong here but i thought i read an opinion by you this morning where they challenge the standing in you stated that failure to provide information under sixteen ninety two g is that injury because it is the denial of information sufficient for spoke your purposes and the idea that she somehow had to detrimental he relied on the information is inconsistent with the supreme court's decision and havens versus coleman realty court where there there were tester plaintiffs who knew that they were going to receive false information and had no intention on relying it or acting on it other than to give them the ability to bring a lawsuit part of the realtors here that the focus is the consumer and equipping the consumer to protect the consumers interests right it's different well part of protecting the consumers interests is making sure the trees fully have formed for rights and how precedents it didn't overrule the ninth circuit simply remanded back to the ninth circuit and on remand the ninth circuit held that there was standing in the supreme court tonight and this court for years has held that under the hypothetical under sophisticated consumer standard under the f t c p a that's all important whether the plaintiff was misled or deceived due to an insufficient debt collection letter and in bartlett versus he it's not have required to the plaintiff have read the letter to make a claim and i understand that this report sent some tension between those decisions and spoke you and the way the district court resolved those spicing spokeo the standing this issue in those are liability but the way i think in this court's decades of jurisprudence using the unsophisticated consumer standard what they were recognizing is that when a debt collector sends an incomplete or misleading debt collection notice that poses a harm to all of here please the court counsel under the strange circumstances of this case i have some concern i may have said too much already so i'll keep my comments brief as neutral as i can they are independent as i can in answer any questions you have but i think the answers to this case the pen's on the answer to the question so so she didn't get the words in writing the question is so and if there is no answer to th floor if the answer to the question so doesn't match up with the harm congress was trying to prevent or the entrusted is trying to protect then there is no standard let me ask you this question do you think that this is a matter of congress not having tried to confer standing in this situation or do you think this is a case of congress trying to confer standing kind of on a maybe in a little one sense but exceeding article three because this doesn't satisfy article three zero climate's why i don't think it's clear at all that congress tried to create standing by this statute i think his counsel pointed out that writing requirement is really one of effectiveness of the credit system where you have to have some proof that this dispute actually arose you can it would render it on workable if they could do it world excuse me orally so the writing is essential to the protection of both parties and not just a lack of information which may or may not be useful depending on what they intend to do after that so there definitely would have been standing if she had either orally intended or tried to dispute the or even if she disputed the amount on the letter or the identity of the original creditor but that we don't even have those facts so all we have is a hypothetical possibility if and that's pretty much the phrase they use throughout their brief says she lost information that would have been necessary if she wanted to go out and dispute something or ask the identity of the original but that at this point that's just speculative and that's contingent and future unknown future events that just haven't happened at that point there is some tension in any event that they had and they all assess compare the actual claim answer to the question so to the harm of congress ought to prevent or interest it so as to protect that in my view reconciles all the cases especially the circuit court of appeals cases that all parties have cited here i recognize there are a lot of district court opinions that agree with them there  courts that do that and they have a sort of position that the district courts have been taking are inconsistent with gross shark and myers and the other cases from this court as well as there found there was standing for two but not another to two different issues and they pointed out for example well you don't have an advance payment so the fact that they didn't give  about automatic payment i should say rather than dance that's immaterial to the fact that you didn't disclose upfront that you have an obligation to respond to a dispute within thirty days or whatever also that's contingent on future events so it's really not and you haven't shown that that ever became an issue so that you don't have standing for that so the main ruling in that they're relying on question of skip breakfast that the main ruling that they're relying on is the fact that upfront when you're opening up this credit account you should have told debt or up front before the relationship even begins with what back debt or needs to do and may impact her credit  practices thereafter on top of the at that kind of a situation i think it's inevitable that there's going to be a substantial majority of people that are going to eventually have a unhappy purchase so to speak and so that kind of issue is something that congress did and legislate standing there for that interest because of the fact that it's almost inevitable that a good number of people are going to be dissatisfied with a purchase and we want them to know what they need to do beforehand before they even enter into this credit relationship but that's a little bit different than here where it's not inevitable that there is going to be a dispute to the or not it's fact it's very rare and not only they have but there's it's not going to affect your how you use th credit so i think there is a possible distinction but the answer to the question lies in whether struble that holding applies to the situation whether it's the single symbol or no whether it's crucial here they are the plaintiff has is not claiming that she ever intended to take advantage of the information she claims she she should have and so there are pages four and five so just last year post spokeo seventh circuit decided the case of pan toyah which also involved portably misleading death collection letter and in that case the court didn't address whether  ever relied on the misleading information which was ever hurt by the purportedly misleading information and yet it had granted summary judgment for the consumer and i think this just illustrates you know that there is a harm there's a harm to sending out to consumers as opposing counsel recognized a misleading or incomplete data collect a lot of consumer protection statutes that congress hasn't acted arcs and large part entirely ignorant statutes to design to educate consumers what about what rights they have and by failing to educate the consumer about what rights they have in the