fundamentally about the quotation rental car rates in the state of california to california it's not the later rental transaction in some other states second the plane would last when you s is that the plain language of the statute governs the transactions at issue here third i'd like to discuss why this matters in other words how the quotation of unbundled rates in laid over the internet and to a consumer received by the consumer in the state of california and our class was carefully defined to limit the claims to slices through finally but how do i know the consumer is in california your honor we think there are as a practical matter and i understand that that's an issue and of course reservations of advance not the day of the rental the vast vast majority of the time the person is going to make the reservation from his or her place or residence there may be current technology the ip address is can be defined by their computers too to tell them where that computer is located and they can tell that it is connected to  drop down menu for worth at least in every state already for where you're going to make the rental later on equally easily be a drop down menu asking for the presidency of the renter and in fact they spending most of the time in another place is not a trivial problem it's an issue i mean it's something that happens all the time you now have two koreas families where sometimes spouses live in different cities for the consumer at the time he is making sure she is making the mental quotation or getting the rental quotation if his or her place of residence and obviously if the defendant rental car firms want to challenge is specifically limited to people who make these advance reservations while in california now it may be that as a matter of finding the class we will have to develop a mechanism to to here or there really is no rule here but more often than not you think you are given another opportunity to reply more often than not the ninth circuit does appear to the general rule that amendments shall be liberally resolved i mean i was trying to answer judge very concerned not really i knew it was in the i see that my time is rolling along and i would like to address the question of why this ruling and i think it and third and this is something that arises in the the comments that the council of better business bureau in the that we submitted in connection with the airline charges i'd like to court to consider why the rental car companies unbundled their charges they don't do it just to be confusing and deceptive to consumers there's no shame to them from that but they are able to use this technique to to is paying and they get the con your honor the customer is told the total amount but we have alleged that this is a deceptive practice and i think the literature the professional the reason to do it and the professional literature the marketing literature bears that out that could refer to the court so that an article five professors morwitz it all in the journal of marketing research called divide and prosper as a matter of consumer psychology if you will and and that is how that is why the rental car companies try to add on these fees that is why the national association of attorney generals taskforce found them unfair and d zine to allow the collection and pass through of these consolidated facility charges which are charges that airports impose i mean this is a critical distinction because the facility adopted eavis argues that the definition of consolidated facility charge refers to those california airports but as we read the statute that's not true  any defines the term consolidated facility charge without reference to the california statutes we certainly agree that the california legislature didn't intend to require audits of charge could not be clearer in referring both to audit rights and burbank airport that that phrase is intended to cover california airports only and as your honour's correctly pointed out the definition of customer facility charge position that the car rental companies have the right to assess the fee for rental in tucson or laws vegas or other states he's focusing merely on the language about quotation so number one that meeting makes no sense that somehow the california in their complaint at page twenty three of the record on appeal a reservation from in a recent budget will and it shows disclosure at the time of the rental of the airport concession recovery fee in the outdoor pricing and the receipt which is in the record at page forty seven does the same thing you've got a practice of disclosure that is obvious to anyone who tries to make a reservation that practice began they say no mater the one nine hundred ninety seven in two thousand and one when the amendment adding the definition of customer facility charge is added what is the california legislature do with this obvious practice actual disclosure and it's absolutely clear what the current companies are doing do they clarify the language to say applies nationwide know the california legislature modify the language to attempt to show that somehow quotation is different than the charging of raids no there is an expressed provision added to the statute which says clearly as i think the panel realizes clearly confirming that the scope of the statute was only intended to apply to transactions of california airports but were not done in two thousand and four as we point out and the parents don't even address the issue position that this being articulated by appellants they did the opposite they clarified the scope applying to california airports they clearly confirm the presumption that california statutes are not intended to apply that estate transactions and then allowed charge for a car rental but california somehow they say can make the car rental companies lie the consumers by not telling them at the time of reservation if they happen to meet their magical task that you got one foot in california and you want to be a resident nag report simply said totally consistent with our position on this case that if you're going to advertise a prize you should tell people at same time what the outdoor price is going to be the next did not say you can't have a nine hundred ninety nine the consumer today your honor and throughout the class period and this is their own documents that have to their complaint prove now what the time of reservation what they're going to pay you don't just get the basic rate and then you walk up to the counter or even worse you return the car and you find out about if you rent a car to california airport in full compliance with nine hundred thirty six then one you are not quarter charge an airport concession recovery fee the issue that they've been complaining about is somehow  the state of california so it doesn't matter where you're from you you are charged a rate of compliance with california law and this in budget do the same thing it for arizona rental or another state they comply with the law where the vehicle is located and avis in budget will get an estimate of the total of the runoff that automatically is generated if you go on or mr expedia you will get the daily rate and the outdoor rate the total rate quoted to you and this isn't about what expedient will be to do but the good thing for consumers and the reason why this is a very bad case for consumers is they're encouraging the deception they think they're telling us that somehow parsing the statute in ways that that seems to me impossible to get to that somehow the illegality here is not the assessment of the fee they've given up that argument but it's somehow that we can't tell people we can't quoting they're saying to us either take your chances don't quote the fee when they show up in tucson or laws they guess or else where charging the fee and see what happens and that clearly can't be what the legislature intended that's not what the language says and it would lead to absurd results they're not allowed to regulate the rates out of state they've admitted it once they've nipped that the disclosure of the charge found and as the legislature in its wisdom confirmed in the language in one thousand thirty six zero five which says clear as day good faith estimate of the total provided at the time of reservation gives you a safe harbor you can charge what you want you can call you to get a quote on a car you have to at least provide the kind of car you want where you want to pick it up in the amount of time you want to have the car rates change depending on whether it's a weekend rate a weekly rate right from the tuesday or wednesday we're business person might want to rent a car so the rates are different so you do need to give that basic information about the type of vehicle location where you're going to drop it off in the length of the rental and once you do that whether you call avis budget or anybody you're going to get a quote for the out the door  that aren't their own interpretations that make no sense having admitted that the car rental companies have the right to charge the fee and because of the customer facility charge language and because of the one nine hundred thirty six point zero five language and because of th robinson and because of capital leasing and because the presumption against extraterritoriality in light of the admissions they made on page three of their briefing on page twenty three of their opening believe that the charging of the fee is lawful they have not provided of support for the view that somehow the legislature in one thousand thirty six didn't mean what it said when it said advertise quarter charge because either you can't do all of it or none of it was intended to cover the state transactions and charge was used to obfuscate and the fact that they allow it for businesses but not consumers as mr donovan conceded simply shows that the concern is with the consumer who has a harder time understanding what a concession recovery car companies to unbundle the charges in exactly this fashion and that's what prompted the report as well as the council of better business bureau's in the case of the airline fees your honor