it please the court at a minimum it is plausible to assert the trench union acted on reasonably when it failed to follow its own procedures to ensure or to assure maximum possible accuracy i think it's important to read the statute the statute doesn't have the word technical accuracy in it doesn't have factual accuracy in the statute is very clear that the credit reporting agency must employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy the crop of this court stated congress did not leave limit the x mandate to reasonable procedures to assure only technical accuracy to the contrary the act require reasonable pursuit procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy certainly reports containing factually correct information that nonetheless misread their leaders are neither maximally accurate nor fair to the consumer who is the subject of the report so we need to decide on this accuracy business whether we're going to stay with those cases that have said this really just involves factual accuracy or whether as trance union develops its procedures it and its counterparts of course in the industry do they need to put procedures in place that would enable them to spot loans that might for some reason be legally unenfor sure hold our feet to the fire on the factual points and you could even say and the way we think about what those factual points may be asking us to do a dive into the legal enforceability of a transaction between rd party a and the person whose credit report we're compiling is too much you know we're not in the best position  that it would require really quite a different set of procedures yes your honor and this is the paired up tick matic case for that question because there are no new new procedures needed well but there's that they say there are now we can think about that you know you could you could start with the fact that these lenders have some link you know we can talk about what that link is to indian tribes and potentially tribal law or tribal sovereign immunity or tribal restrictions we can think about these were it one of them was i recall in new jersey  bar or the other was in florida you know how those states laws apply to this seems to me that there's a non trivial inquiry even if it's easier than they say it is it's harder than you  with all respect it is trivial in the sense that trent jr had its own procedures in place it has a credentialing department in the potentially department the employees are given a chart a checklist of state laws and state legal requirements before they report loans they don't report loans for credit furnishers that do not meet their requirements and they have to determine if in fact they have the requisite licensing in order to make those loans in this case it's undisputed that trend unit admits lenders must be legal in the states in which they operate it's also undisputed and so well let me ask you this if if you have brought this case exclusively about the procedures the trans union follows and you said trans union does not check for state required licenses in every state in which it's furnishers are doing business i don't understand you to be making just that claim you are we are making that claim and going beyond that claim but at its simplest level it is that claim and we were lucky enough to get fortunate we pushed forward to get one deposition in the case before the case was dismissed and that was of the director of compliance for trans union and the director of compliance acknowledge that they had this legal checklist they go through and they make certain that people are licensed in the states in which they operate they acknowledged that in tribes operate means what if you have if you're a furniture of credit and you extend a loan to a consumer but suppose on the furniture of credit here in illinois and i extend a loan to a consumer in indiana what's trans union supposed to do where do they think i'm doing business yes that's that's the interesting point your honor trains union disclaims any responsibility to make a legal determination well in fact the natives like my question  a i'm a furniture in illinois i decide i'm going to loan you know some money to a person who's domus silden india no question your honor your loan takes place in indiana and the laws of indiana govern that loan nationally over the internet to individuals living residing in the loans took place where they resided and every case that has looked at this it is undisputed that when an indian tribe operates off the reservation whether directly or by the internet it must comply with the laws of that state the it's been the supreme court says nine hundred and seventy three like a weird technical question are great planes landing in plain green tribal corporations they must be there not to try as they are tribal corporation dragger and actually they have operations in more than just the reservation so they have like the collections department for a great plains is not on the reservation things of that nature so in this case we had the director of compliance for trenton and acknowledging that they require a license in the states in which they operate acknowledging that the only license they were provided was the tribal license in the case of so great things yes you're on that's an interesting question so  trans union we're dealing with more ordinary not in other words not tribal with all the extra complexities of indian law but a more ordinary lender and the lender said we have a license to do business in illinois would transfer union also demand the disclosure of licenses in any other state where a customer got a loan yes your honor good question the answer is they should but it appears that they do not that and that's the legal that's the legal determination the trans union made the irony is they say we don't make legal determination actually they make a legal determination because right now the disclosure requirement rather than whether the clear that if you don't have a consumer lending license and you offer loans as these loans then the loans are void have been issue it's that clear and trans union knew in fact in their files which we were able to get limited discovery they spoke with in the case of great plains the trans union credentialing employee noted the need talk with the state of oklahoma and was advised that an oklahoma state license was that can be altered by agreement of the parties obviously as we all know there are some laws that are just a fault laws of the parties have agreed in other laws that are not subject to displacement and yes your honor you're correct and once again we cited in our brief every case that has looked at this is found that as a matter of public policy states will not waive the about application of their laws particularly in areas such as consumer lending to allow a choice of law provision or a waiver in a in a private agreement of this nature and then it's without dispute similarly with respect to plain green the credentialing employee charged with credentialing playing gr contacted the montana stick to your state's office and quote per operator a tribal business does not need to file unless they are conducting business outside of the tribal community again in a deposition so same employee no to the potentially community in addition to those red flags they also received a cease and desist order from the state of connecticut in which the state of connecticut found at no time relevant here to was great plains licensed as a small loan lender in connecticut the plaintiff has to prove that there was an inaccuracy reported or maintained by the credit bureau and then the nd was that there were those inaccuracies were caused by reasonable person right so as i understood your position that's why i was saying that there was a little bit of muddying going on as i understand your position enforceable or not there were the two loans enforceable or not that you know no one is saying like the amount or you know something like  that and so from trans union point of view some of them understand your argument that was enough now whether the great plains lending or plain green corporations should have been loaning to people in new jersey or florida or anywhere else for that matter your argument crosses the line over into their legal status i guess some of the cases have come close to the line the line between legal and factual accuracy does not strike me as a crisp one and you know it seems that you know where something is jotted down in indiana court record you know is a factual question then that gets kind of  accurate printing reported that these two individuals took out loans printing reported that those loans had been paid in part but not paid in full and that they were balances still remain train june did not report that these lenders have licenses  all fifty states trained unit did not report that the loan agreements by which the plaintiffs agreed that that state law did not apply to those loans that those agreements were enforceable transient did not state that these entities were that's a distinction between factual accuracy and my legal contention if you examine the tree and junior will prevail and i think you would agree that if there had been a lawsuit brought by  padgett for example saying that these are unenforceable loans because there was no florida license the trans union would have the obligation to make a notation of that in its records and and say this was all bad there i would not only agree with that but the record demonstrated that would train journey and over the one of the included states is not connecticut the connecticut department of banking issued an order saying that these loans were invalid connecticut lo training mediately removed all non zero accounts from its file that's a pro consumer decision because you want to keep the good counts on file ironically it turns out that that connecticut order on appeal sent back down to the banking commission told to do a tribal sovereign you did the analysis it did that went back up the connecticut spirit court said no you did it wrong to do it again so even though that order is still on appeal today as soon as tree and union learned that the connecticut banking commissioner had invalidated the loans all the connecticut loans were wiped out and that's a distinction between a fact inaccuracy in a legal inaccuracy a lot of the cases that the plaintiff allies upon ironically are claims where there was an adjudication there was a bankruptcy discharge and the question was did to puro properly characterized the discharge there was a lot matters of an of the turbot in law those are not matters of deciding was that order discharged was he guilty of a felony or of a misdemeanor that had already been adjudicated and the challenges in those cases were did the bureau properly read the court or most notably the only case that playing this site for the proposition that these aren't these laws were an accurate court just looked at indiana court rules said no you have to look at the underlying client so there is never been one single court district court or appellate court says agree with plaintiffs that it's that if there's a contentio that these ones may be invalidated someday that that makes it an actor and it's entirely well established by this court in every other appellate court to consider the issue but you don't even get to the issue of reasonable procedures until you've established and then accuracy in the play is about right i mean because that's important in some ways because you could imagine i mean obviously underlying all of this is your contention that both for the original reporting of of loans and for the reinvestigation trans union on the whole dart on the whole and by and large relies on information the come from the furnishers right i mean they don't do some massive independent factual investigation of that when there's a challenge or something they just write to the furniture again say did you make this loan right that's right and that's why the fair credit reporting act operate your honor because the reason why the bureau can rely upon the reporting by the furnishers is that the furnace has had their own independent obligations to make sure that what they're reporting is actor if i get it but if the i guess one of the issues here and maybe we don't reach it if if you're right about the accuracy threshold requirement one of the issues is should trans union have let great plains and plain green be furnishers at all if they go through violated that provision that provision says that you have to investigate your clients make sure that they are who they say they are i e lenders of information and make sure that they have permissible purposes to get predator and we did that not only we went to the reservation your honor we saw their offices on site we did an extensive credentialing of these mr bell suggests that the fact that they did not have a license in every state should amend that it would be  inaccurate to report all these laws or st off your honor which we delegate states to this court what our procedures work i believe it's paragraph seventy three of the complaint at the appendix twenty one  checks to see if the potential client has a license singular you know if you have a license in the domicile where you are that indicates that you are who you say you are procedures are not to see if there are licenses in every state of the country and there's been no suggestion by playing us that somehow that is a requirement but even if trangia went further than it's necessary and discovered that the lenders are not licensed in every state that doesn't prove anything not all states require licenses even if they were unlicensed that doesn't mean that the loan is invalid finally to make this point the deposition the plainness referred to that occurred after the briefing of this and all those allegations about our procedures are not in the original complaint the said these new allegations do not raise new claims to not add new parties that amendment most and expressly says these go to the issue of reasonable procedures and appellate court to consider it but you don't get to the thorny issue of reasonable seizures if there's been no reporting of it and accurate information your honor enforceable or not is not the standard if enforceable or not if it can be simply accurate as to who shot who did what to whom when then trans union if that's the rule that's adopted and that's adopted by this court and that frees trans union and the other credit reporting agencies to report loan sharking to report any illegal loans they have no obligation as long as they get larry the leg breakers the name right and they get the amount of the vigorish right there has to be more than that the well i mean i suppose one answer and the and no one wants that outcome i suppose but it's not just a legal regime that covers the reporters who cover the furnishers as well so there are a lot of problems with the loan sharks that might be picked up the furniture level of the attic and a case brought by one of the borrowers against that person assumes the loan is declared illegal then the credit reporter has to stop reporting it but that's exactly what's happening in this case st your honor there are cases ongoing right now against playing green and great plains and i think the courts where that we've cited in our briefs so this so i think as a factual matter these lenders are not licensed and we're not talking about all fifty states we're talking about eighteen states which are very clearly set out that if you are commercially lending in our state at this level then you must be licensed to do so you must have a consumer lending license trenching you know so that they knew it it's reflected in their paper in their credentialing file and they ignore it these loans are misleading because they suggest that these people are less credit worthy than others because they refused to pay back loans that had interest rates in excess of three hundred percent there is no loan that has a rate an interest rate of three hundred percent or more that's consentual these people are desperate people they don't go online they take out a payday loan some of the times the interest rates went it in excess part eight thousand nine hundred percent they use trans union as their collection h mr dean and himself was told by a trans union representative that because of the loan that is it issue in this case his credit score was thirty seven points lower than it would have been otherwise the fact that he refused to pay a loan that had interest rate in excess of three hundred percent does not mean that he is on credit worthy in a normal lending context that's what's misleading about it when they say due and owing that is misleading that was the test in several cases before the court right now they found in accuracy simply by reporting a loan as due and owing when it was not that's the issue in this case there are no new procedures the fact that we got discovery after the motion to dismiss was breached does not mean that these claims were not in our original complaint we've stated our claim in the original complaint that these lenders were not licensed in the states that's why the whole focus of the the the lawsuit was over eighteen included states these states are the ones that were acquired licensing to promote loans of this nature or to extend loans of this nature and so we focused on them that we simply got the facts to demonstrate that in fact there were no new procedures required we didn't know until we took that discovery that in fact trenching it already does this so this is the height of reasonable procedures procedures that they already employ but they're not following thank you thank you very much thanks to both counsel thank you case under