is whether the proper pleading standard was applied to google's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's th amended complaint about the standards set forth by this court and taylor versus ian that adds a motion to dismiss phase the district court must construe the complaint the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and in addition draw all reasonable and princes in the nonmoving parties that it sings favor now we  saturday discovery and so there's only so much you could expect them to know by contrast here the court was dealing with a complaint of was filed after well your honor certainly it certainly is but we believe again that the pleading standard that's applied here would still give us standing in this case the district court with under an obligation to construe our allegations in the light most favorable to us with inferences but actually required evidence that any inference you would need could you survive summary judgment of the allegations you math here absolutely ana we have allegations that show well i should just go to go ahead and say that the instance the thing has been paying for ad words since two thousand and eight that the effectiveness of ad words has been in question since two thousand and twelve according to a number of studies and based upon studies on singh's own accounts that the nd sort of their sources are helpful it's very difficult for other you've got my understanding from what you've alleged is that you haven't really even alleged that the two thousand and eighteen study is represented in what was going on in two thousand but in any event i would say that again just looking back back at the allegation that singh has played he had secondary sources that show that going back to as far as two thousand and twelve the adverts platform has been subject to much greater rates of click fraud and google has represented to consumers so the logical beef that we are asking this court to make and that we made at the district court to make was bad well if those levels of click fraud are occurring on the google platforms from two thousand and twelve onward and those levels of click fraud are purring on seeing the counts in two thousand and eighteen then it follows that things have been paying for invalid clicks and then but in any case your hono for weather for the ackwards service or for these clicks we believe that at this stage in the proceedings plausibility standard provided by twamley and i all was what the district court needed the following as for more clicks and he bargained for we believe that those are the reasonable inferences that can be made in this case just based on the pleading standards here which calls for a district court to take the complaint on its face for all the facts and  this case the plaintiff saying had actually conducted his own studies on his adverts accounts that went back to even before we filed this complaint however the district court told us that those were not and amended complaints but in any case we believe that yes there is evidence through the secondary sources fad throughout the the google fear on all this advertising platforms including ad complaint here was after discovery was over it and i think you may actually have a good point that under the most to dismiss standard the complacent have been dismissed but it's just a very odd position because  understand appreciate what your point is and we believe that again if we went down to the district court one of the things that we would ask for now whether or not we would get it is a different question but one of the things we asked for was it would be a reopening of of that we don't think we did we don't think we have the full opportunity to get that information because we're in there and this record imposed limits on what kind of discovery you could say not to my recollection your honor but again we we were result of google statements california law doesn't allow that result and if the court was correct to dismiss this case or don't let's not council in the rd amended complaint plaintiff alleged i spent two hundred thousand dollars  on these campaigns and has alleged throughout that if i had known the truth i wouldn't have signed up and the district court said basically without even discussing the two hundred thousand dollars that's not what you have to show you have to show that you specifically a are fraudulent clicks in excess of ten percent i don't understand why that is required for standing why isn't it enough to say is the client in the statement so a couple of things that we know clearly from both d california law and from from this court's decisions the st is that simply paying for a service or a product isn't enough itself an injury under the u google said ten to fifteen percent and ninety five percent of the clinics were fraudulent but i can't tell you exactly ones that that wouldn't save enough of an economic injury to this our standing no i we we've said throughout this case and then the district court said so d as well that that he if he could allege facts from which it was plausible to conclude that the representations google made about the efficacy of its of its filters way higher in general and if i had known that i never would've spent those one hundred thousand dollars i don't understand why that consumes a sufficient economic injury regardless of what is actually click fraud rate was well the reason the reason for that is is that if we assume a world in which he in fact was protected from let's say ninety or one hundred percent of invalid clicks he says google filters are less effective we said that they weren't but assume a world in which he was protected from from all invalid clicks that the filters may not have been effective generally but were affected as to his account in that world and this is exactly what the district court said he wouldn't have lost any money or property as a result of the statement he would have gotten from google exactly what he wanted for it what he wanted exactly what he bargained for exactly what he says he paid for which is which is protection from ninety percent or ninety five percent of invalid clicks on his account so it is supposed to supposing google had said we protect you any party any customer to ever show that they personally lost money or a cleric's so they figured this is the perfect fraud we can get away with and you're saying that would whether we would somehow relax that standing rule because of the the knowledge that nobody could ever satisfy and i don't know here of course and this goes to the colloquy that you're having with with  mcneil is that you know that we have the the odd fact of this case that the th amendment can play the operative complaint here was filed two months after the close of discovery and so he had every opportunity and really the point of the treatment giving him the opportunity to to submit a for the method can play was to take any information that he had believed from discovery and any further information that he had and put it in constantly which is the other study the the main problem with that is there's there's no sense that the overall rate of clicks what you know for any relevant period of time certainly for a monthly billing period or year to say anything of his of his overall experience as a as a google advertiser was was in any way different from the representations he had five campaigns that he looked at in that study and curiously enough seeing particular where they're seeing the over the number of like that were filtered out the number of clicks that were valid or they're getting information about the efficacy of the filters and how the filters work but i don't think it is gran any individual collect now here of course you know he had the mechanisms of of civil discovery if he wanted to get access to that information to the extent that it existed and i think it probably doesn't at least in some form but he went through discovery and never never even asked for it much less much less got anything that would have informed the analysis that that that went into the for the many complaints but are you general billing information that judge bennett was just referring to so he at that point did not know the names or localities or whatever of specific people who pleadings point to particular clerics that were invalid that that's not what the district court found and that's not what our position is our position is simply that he has to allege facts from wh plausible that he during some relevant period of time suffered and was charged for invalid slips at a greater rate than the rate that he says google promised that's the that's the standard it's in it's not really about advertiser actually experienced a rate of invalid clicks the google filters failed to filter out it was greater than the the ninety percent rate that he says the statements promised so that the fundamental failing that the just records discretion and giving you the ability to read lead but in terms of the level of specificity is there tape that says you have to show more specificity if you're filing it two years in as opposed to case that says that it frankly is not an argument that we made and i don't read the district court's decision as as being based on some different standard although i do think that given that the test is plausibility under under a paul twomey that's obviously a commonsense inflexible standard that can be tailored to the particular circumstances that the court has in front of it and i do think it's pardon the pun but plausible to conclude that there is a there's a the the evidence that that is in the plaintiff's possession at the time that the complaint is filed matters or can be at least thought about in thinking about whether the complaint plausibly alleges facts of vision to state a claim now so i don't have a case that sir chapter and verse for that but it does seem does seem sort of a common sense proposition to make if i could just very quickly talk about the the alternative certain non standing arguments that we've made which i think  are an independent basis for affirming the district court's decision here and were issues that were both discussed in in the sense ruled on by the district judge certainly argued below argued in our brief and not responded to in appellants reply brief i mean the fundamental problem with this case is that it is based on the theory that google statements warranted or promised to mr singer and to google advertisers a particular rate of invalid click detection he says something like ninety or ninety five percent and that claim as does true and recognize run this headlong into the language of section eight of the two thousand and six agreement section five of the two thousand and thirteen agreement both of which are very clearly say google is not representing or warranting any particular advertising and particularly any results relating to to clicks and so what he's essentially trying to do is make a claim that is that is directly precluded by the language of the contract so so that theory just as a matter of law fails judge freeman recognized that is dismissing the rd amended complaint she didn't have occasion to rule on the merits in dismissing the th the medic complained because she decided the case based on standing if she had i'm quite confident she would have dismissed it on the honor i just want to briefly touch on something that counsel for google kept bringing up which was this notion of plausibility and how it related to things allegations just for previously discussing th fraud rates well above the click fraud filter amounts caused by google click fraud filters and yet the district court continued and google continues to argue that somehow we have not plausibly alleged that the click fraud filters on google's accounts were faulty or not as effective as as google which and this really gets the heart of our complaint with what the district court decided which is taking a pleading standard taking out a geisha that we believe plausibly alleged dagg google click had applied the correct pleading standards this question of plausibility would obviously rule in our favor go in our favor because again we believe that through that st complain all the way up through the th complaint we have alleged that google click fraud filters are