a violation to this court should conclude that a person aggrieved by a violation the act is someone who has actually been injured that is so because of the text of the law and because of the and the plaintiffs would have the courts strike those words agreed by a violation of the sacked and if you're looking along with something they would have added to the end of the existing language after it and in blocks long dictionary there's a separate definition for the meaning of the word party name those terms must have some distinct meaning and then an adverse season if you need to party with someone whose rights have been a either of them there is no strict liability there the next words that they cut out of the statute when you're continuing with section twenty are the words whichever is greater when the legislature said that for a negligent violation the recovery is recorded in damages of a thousand dollars or actual damages which ever is greater meaning the legislature set u more of a thousand dollars and since it is more than the law that liquidated damages are not recoverable unless there is some actual loss and liquidated damages are supposed to be a reasonable estimate of actual example they could be not cheering based on their come collection but the plaintiffs is the master of her complaint and she hasn't played any and the order certifying these questions to this court s that in his complaint plaintiff does not allege any actual damages so when the statute set out the steps in which to gather this information to the federal if there was a technical violation they set out no remedies but there they said are ready in case there was harm or injury and in the absence of harm or injury what the legislature has case which involved a data breach excuse me an involved staff to other computers that have private and confidential health information and this who are ruled that the risk of identity theft was too highly speculative or attenuated for there to be any standing or any injury analysis no obligation to follow the statute well i'm not saying that your honor but what are you saying what i'm saying is that there is no right of an auction to enforce it our sense of disclosure who's out the patient where is that statute in enforced how is it in force the statute isn't forced when there is an actual injury still as long as no one is hurt your client is free to ignore the statu actually certified here but i'm i may ask you you you set out your promise and so my i may ask you to for the other side of that certainly and part of your question was today to use it for any purpose and i would say no it's actually alleged in the complaint that it was right there on the web site and all the letters biometrics season passes and so we are assuming for the purposes of the motion to dismiss and this appeal only th that reasoning is supported by two federal district court decisions that are well reasoned thoughtful that the circuit court didn't have the benefit of when he ruled the circuit court below is actually the first court to that there was no viable claim based on the tax to put off and other illinois statutes and i think it's important to emphasize here there really are two different things a statutory right on the one persuasive by a decision from the southern district of new york and while the second circuit recently affirmed that decision purely on standing grounds to cast no doubt on the viability of the has mishandled the data in any way it's no obligation of use for any other purpose so say oh excuse me disclosure and then there's the rottener case  cases seem to involve tanning companies so the rock nurses palm beach tampa case which is really kind of a split decision where the court said no there's no there's no actual damages so you can't recover liquidated damages under the meaning of the statu actually they might say somebody who suffers from identity theft but why doesn't the legislature say that if a person suffers identity theft these each of these provisions in in fifteen we're talking the person who is aggrieved but the defendant didn't wasn't negligent they are exercising reasonable care etc etc but something didn't happen they didn't actually delete the data when the person goes in for an injunction hold that information is required as part of the statute so you can sleep at night who's who's taking my retina scans and what's happening with them and you know the illinois legislature just happened to be out in what you must have written consent maybe six flags decided that sounds like a girl a pain in the buff to have to get a written consent we just want people to come through and do one of these beeps and keep moving so we can keep track of how often the income goes from the part we can use that to track marketing efforts or whatever we don't know why they were doing it but it is simply decided said today that they don't need to comply with the statute at all unless and until just their body just wait and see as long as nothin know until somebody finds out they are using them facebook is a giant company that doesn't even make anything all they do is collect information about everybody around there and they use that to sell the market data is important and this is these are unique failure print is unique it's almost impossible for anybody to have the same fingerprint that you also you have this informational injury you are the six flags shall not question for illinois courts because we don't have an article three standing issues we have this question of the statutory standing and i know the magnitude case short of this morning but it wasn't mentioned in any of the briefs and i know just historians in the world of the opinion is only somebody who's information is stolen and used to process a mortgage loan or something like that if the legislature one of the narrowly created private right or reaction based some little narrow thing that could happen they should have done that instead of just saying here's things independently that must happen and the person agreed by a violation can very mention these because these aren't just the background of the statute you there's a property interest in your fingerprint it's valuable to people that's why they collect it that's why people will be willing to buy it or sell six flags could take their database and give it to one of the subsidiaries and use it for whatever and then somebody would say hey what did you do you sold or you at least thirty traded and they said no no harm no following nothing bad happened we're just using it in all our other companies and how this company is using it and it's a technical violation we're going to back but there was no monetary loss you know not agree that's what that's the difference now but it's not that  thank you a few points and remodel number one we didn't say we didn't need to comply with the statute didn't see any other kind company didn't comply with the statute or simply saying that there is no private right of action to the point it was asked to scan his finger third money two questions when each of us argued about could there be a different outcome on the first question and on the second question and i suppose well in the in the dia case for example the courts at the mere retention there is no actual harm there and we think the logical principle the logical extension of that is that the technically and he certainly couldn't point to any actual damages that resulted from that i heard no response to the argument that liquidated damages for the be a reasonable estimate of actual damages but there must be some actual harm it's not a penalty