history and the judgment of congress in determining whether congress intended to confer rice the invasion of which created a standing  in congress were even a further step and barring the mechanism by which consumers could be protected from that horror by stating that no more than the last five digits of a receipt get into the consumer miss jeffries at the point of sale that's where we look for whether this information is protected information was disseminated not word or miss allow the information to be disseminated to a third party and i agree with you that this is a dissemination case because in preparing for it i kept thinking about the merchant who keeps the information to himself and then disseminates it to the owner of that credit card and it seems to me that it's ok or whatever is similar in that the dissemination of incorrect information was all that was needed to find harm and here is the dissemination of correct but too much information  issue twice in two thousand and three when they passed back in two thousand and eight five years later when they passed clarification and congress developed state that the name couldn't be printed but the reason that  vacuum they heard from experts from the credit card industry and the credit card industry and government officials pointed to numbers being the most important information not names and we cite to a study  clovers here we have such an extensive legislative history about the importance of carvers and the importance of trained cation it is crystal clear that congress intended to convert right and i were you talking about the risk of risk of harm being real here because received that receipt was only through her own actions that she was able to block some of his risk of heart so the risk of korma did abide by carver's which is consumers getting receipts with their card numbers on them the possibility of identity absolutely and again the risk was only decrease because she kept up with it and that is why second point on that is the additional burden argument they say that she had to take on duty that congress placed on the merchandise to protect that information congress or visit important information need to be protected and don't disclose this information when you're dealing with consumers so in a place that i'm going to  question is and this is where we started getting to the actual scenario it is not every employee has access to that data and here we were able to see that what he was able to access for  let me ask you are you giving away too much because in own career the dissemination of the incorrect information was enough for the two truck drivers and judge hale and his opinions and we don't have to wait until an employer sees it and say i'm not going to hire you because of the safety record and here it seems like the dissemination is the harm and is the harm that the statute protects against and it's more than the risk of harm it's the harm itself the dissemination and so we're talking about the increased risk being either something additional is certainly something separate but why do we need  increased risk of the dissemination itself is the harm as an owner operator and once it was disseminated we they didn't have to wait for an injury to the truck  that website and in owner operator i thought i'll go back and re read it i thought this information had to comply with the fair credit reporting and and it was just there in the transportation department transportation files correct how is that further disseminated or today where did the statute issue more operator contemplated within that third parties would have access to a perspective about lawyers without access to a liking to make the same argument that the handing out of this receipt is going to be disseminated not to third parties case even stronger that congress revisited this issue in two thousand and three five years later they revisit the issue and come to the exact same conclusion part of information is the single most crucial part numbers are the single most crucial piece of information necessary what are you in the three and a half years since ms jeffries received her credit card receipt she's not alleged any identity theft she has not identified any use of her credit card in a fraudulent manner sixteen so all these other cases just don't get there your honor i think that it's a few things that are in response you first of course we would prefer not to have all sixteen digits on the president would all respect i think we do have a case and that is the basket case that the ninth circuit where they set the issues in the case in the very first paragraph of their opinion as quote is receiving an overly were revealing credit card receipt unseen by others in an unused by identity thieves a sufficient injury to confer article three standing and they decide no it is not what we have your two lines of cases both lines of cases lead to the determination that there is no article three standing there's one line cases that say oh if it's just an expiration date that's not going to cause harm or if the first six digits which really relate to the identity  bank that that's not going to cause harm and so that's how they those cases decide the issue but in bassett and in the miers case at the seventh circuit they do say that dissemination to a third party is required and i think it goes back to the historical antecedent in the common law it goes back to things like invasion of privacy there you have private information that is somehow disseminated to a third party or breach of confidence we're i share with you with confidential information and either you use it for your own benefit or you share it with judge henderson that's a violation of the statute but again it's dissemination to the party we don't have that here in so what's the real harm to ms jeffries receiving back a credit card receipt albeit with all the digits it's no different for her is receiving back that credit card itself on and the next paragraph to say you have to show a concrete injury beyond just a satchel tory violation and the majority of the circuits all that you're asking a case in the eleventh circuit go my way and say no you've got to have more you've got to have disclosure to a third party you know what i'm saying they're not looking at the language that i'm looking at and i don't see it sort of the way you're saying the court is saying in addition because congress is well positioned to identify intangible homes that meet the minimum requirements of their judgment is instructed and then they go on to say they have the right to the following injuries where none have been conceived of in the past that they have that responsibility and they point of sale that's the harm that congress is the find they don't have they're saying you have before anything else they're not saying you have to show a common law and the law and make it on those terms that they just say that's a place to look to get some thought all was and if you can't you know i am not sane and i'm not saying that what i am saying is that the plaintiff in this case needed to show some actual or imminent concrete harm as a result of receiving this credit card receipt she can see that she didn't share it with anybody she kept it the only person she shared it with was with her lawyer and she held on to it for four days short of two years before even finally the lawsuit and no harm to her occurred she didn't suffer any identity theft she did not suffer any fraud there was nothing absolutely nothing the only injury she can identify is the fact that she had to hold on to the receipt no different than if she had to hold on to the credit card itself there's no extra effort there's no left extra burden some people actually prefer to keep their secrets but keeping the oversea itself is not enough harm to create a concrete injury that spokeo requires worst case were all sixteen digits of them explode but our point is your honor none of that happened if mitt is no low risk go home is not actual home that's where you argue makes no sense to me you're leaving out all the spokeo that talks about risk of harm as being relevant and they're citing cases it's not an actual war and it's really the risk of war even if i receive help i don't get certain information there's the plaintiffs appellants rely so heavily on because that was a case in a very unique procedural posture in that i just want to point that out to the court in moran skeet which by the way there is a motion for rehearing and pending in has been pending since the fall and the mandate has not been issued but in moran speak we have a class action where the parties settle the plaintiffs and defendants who group defendants were willing to pay a substantial amount of money to settle the case no no party including the defendant ever raise standing of the plaintiff as an issue it wasn't raised until the final approval hearing on the class settlement in which case  intervene or appear to mr isaacson he had a bunch of complaints about the settlement and one of the things he raised orally not in writing was the fact that he did not believe the plaintiffs had standing the court approved the settlement and it went up to the eleventh circuit on appeal driven by this object or this intervene or mr isaacson who was claiming no stand no standing on the part of the plaintiffs put the court the court of appeals in an awkward  position and they had a situation where the defendant was willing to pay generous settlement to resolve the case in fact the eleventh circuit says the settlement amount was better than with the plaintiff recovered trial in so if they found no standing on the part of the plaintiff that settlement disappears there is no settlement in if you read the opinion and particularly the concurring opinion there is an issue whether or not the  the intervenor even had standing to contest the standing of the named plaintiffs apparently that concurring opinion only could secure the single vote but perhaps that's why the motion for rehearing is still pending we o and your resistance to what they're saying about risk of harm and they're talking about situations every whole paragraph on which saying if congress is the point home a certain way it may be very never be able to show any which is what you are demanding when you say she's got to leave the store and show that receipt to other people so they might use that then maybe that will satisfy that's not  and i think maybe you're right as it's going to have to be clarified down the road but as the courts as majority of the courts interpret this language they find that there has to be some additional concrete harm it's not enough to say i got a receipt with too many digits and honor that comes back to our basic disagreement i don't think there has been dissemination i think returning the information to the consumer is not dissemination is contemplated by the statute or by the cases  identity theft right and identity theft requires a dissemination of information to you that that act or it doesn't require identity accomplished we're talking about risk of injury and if you produce if you have anything just a quick point salute argues that you know the fact that the consumer does not have standing for procedural or for statutory violation unless that plate of suckers the ultimate form that congress need to prove it in the first place that is their argument  and i think if we are going to look at what happens after this jeffrey gets the receipt then we have to consider her having to safeguard that receipt and as richard pointed out that is an additional can't put this information on the receipt so you don't have to worry about safeguarding the piece of paper you can be swapping with whatever if you run into someone who doesn't do that you lost the right to use locking so to speak to lay it were over