but simultaneously avoid the burden of oratory and just record held the children in this case did not receive a direct benefit that was incorrect the children receive the entire and only benefit of the ale contract its full performance in response to their commands i did use the amazon service directly calling out we were alexa playing that song alexa what's thirty two times twenty two to avail themselves of the almost enforce the contract and the their claims are all outside of the country excellent question and the direct benefits asako rule which this court will work under the st all which is suing on the contract you need to have a claim on the contract or contractual type of claim with to make a claim for direct benefits of stoffel does not require knowingly exploits the benefits of agreement and received the better benefits long directly from the agreement so you read them as two separate test st as then as a conjunctive test we do and that's the way they've been reading the other circuits we cited and for that matter  question of whether or not there are sufficient facts where that case is so different from this things in townson you had children who were the passive occupants and their families mold the toxin infested home who never then once it says merely raising a claim on doesn't decide the issues and can't necessarily sweep for claims in bar council under the facts of this case what was the claim under the files so that a computer was sent over the internet in return but the whole point is that they didn't agree to that and the whole point that that benefit could have been i mean they were not aware they think they've been wife is were being retained but that is of course exactly what the contract that their parents signed said or that their parent entered and it's undisputed that their parents were down by that their parent and so to go further on that point i think we need to focus as well on the fact that these minors were well aware and continue to use the advantages of this agreement even after they filed this lawsuit the record reflects that in a case for example of the poorest family the devices continued to be named for the kids and continued to use  because the amazon terms provide you the parent agreed to accept responsibility for all that activity from happening on your you know the parents from the outset agreed to do that but even if that weren't expressed consent to the terms on if i meet with the district court that it's unclear whether or not washington adopts a direct benefit as awful as as amazon would want it do you have a position on certifying that to washington course we don't think it's essential  responsibility the question is did the parents imply a clear reason that they were going to on behalf of the kids when they took these divisive name to jack's echo and encourage  circuits and created a wildly overbroad version of the direct benefits test that's not the law anywhere but the simple fact is washington law governs this appeal and the washington supreme court's majority decision in townsend is the beginning and end of this case at the outset though i think it's important to clarify one factual point and one legal point as a factual matter amazon chose not to restrict the use of alexa to individuals who agreed to the alexa terms or amazon conditions amazon and was just occurring tries to pretend otherwise but the complaint alleges the district court found and everyone knows the following quote this is for me are seven once on alexa devices set up amazon allows any individual regardless of whether they are an account holder to use alexa without creating an account and that's a critical i haven't met you before to proceed you'll need to agree to the terms and conditions were you know which are at amazon dot com slash alexa it could do various things but the fact of the matter is the contract is written and to add on that within as as mr bowker noted agreed that if amazon had written its contract to say that you would read the buying in your household these terms the extent possible that's a very different case the simple e the children or their parents were aware of the terms and continued to use the the product the the terms don't say that using the product is a condition or that a accepting the agreement is a condition of was sitting on the kitchen table and i picked it up and it says you agreed to all these various terms the you is my mother and if i later use her phone to set a timer for a benefit is directly bring things under the contract by contrast the benefit derived from an agreement is indirect where the non signatory explains the contractual relation of parties to the agreement but does not exploiting thereby assume the children datta home from the contract but and that flow to the parents contract was a vote for cause of that they were invoking claims in the contract so it would be an indirect benefit but to be clear the washington simply don't use that formulation you can search in west law the phrase direct benefit and anywhere else in the opinion some variation of activist awful zero cases that's just not the formulation they use they use the knowingly expose yet that and that's my question how about how do we know that they were on a gaap that the future well this bodes how narrow the doctrine is it goes the idea that that this is consequential i think frankly it would be incredibly consequential and that ties into the other point i was going to make which is amazon in order to avoid utterly absurd consequences points to a host of limiting factors the sole subject of the contract is this the provision of a service and it was the service itself that the plaintiffs exploited used  you because i think the when the courts are about directors is in direct and knowing the exploit you're talking about the source of the need that was violated and the source of the rights and not the fact that someone  obtains a service or product and so the source of the duty here is a statute has nothing to do with the contract to use an analogy but it also doesn't count the contract it's up to the your voice is going to  be we certainly have disputes about that that will be litigated on the merits but that is something that the contracting parties sees and not the non contact party needed to pick up on your point about the sole purpose the so purpose of getting electricity is they have the electricity if if if that means in an office building live on a light switch they're directed directly and actively taking advantage of a sole reason for electricity serviles i don't think that because  landlord has a contract with the electricity company that the tenant is is bound and this really goes to one can look at all of these bases and in every case of mine washing  and virtually every day in any jurisdiction there's really only two use of curation is why one is what we've been talking about where r t invokes claims under the contract and the other is where a party having consented to exactly what a wrong and that's what we have here a lawsuit based on full form of the contract alleging that the the very contract  authorized exactly that warman's should be ignored that is fundamentally an acquittal rd mr postman speaks about the idea that if you picked up his mom's phone he shouldn't be bound by the terms now way just that all of us used household services together in our household the idea that the only person who would be bound by those terms is the signatory means  means no one can use netflix other than the person who signed up for it we can't take a movie in our house we can't change the channel using voice is on comcast because if we did we would be netfli