allege that you know eric benet was injured by the failure to or the inability to to coach his son's little league team and in trial he testified suffered emotional distress corroborated by his wife corroborated by the documents which showed what was reported and additionally his reputation was found it's common law calling someone a criminal defamation per se or even further protections under the fair credit reporting act so there's no question but the harm was caused by inaccurate about this report provides not only must the information have the maximum level of accuracy but the information quote speak and serving the individual about whom the work relates to and what and that sex offender many many things that are true in the world there are many things that are untrue about persons name he danson whether they committed a crime while the bankruptcy allopaths me launched against them but those true items address the reported happy of the report that mr erickson received his home about the same offense had his social security number immediately next to his name we think that's not at all clear that he is not so your honor the entry level question is that we don't believe that this is a case like pedro where you can address the issue of technical accuracy because you begin with the statute and the statute requires information concerning the individual who is the subject of the report where there is a link between the information on the report and that individual then you turn to the question of even though the information is  while you're because it has been bears no relation to the subject of the report placing a completely false cry one in different individuals report can never be technically accurate all of the cannot water down the application of federal law the standard of maximum possible accuracy but placing a disclaimer on the front or the back of our report indicating that it will not follow that standard or that it the principal question here is whether the report accurate the district court granted judgment as a matter of law after finding that the record will both technically accurate and not misleading based on  clearly states that this is a st and last name naturally and that it may not belong to mr erickson under pedro a statement is technically accurate if it is not false so generally businesses want to know whether a record belongs to somebody in this case little league did not little league was concerned with protecting children and wanted to be absolutely certain that i cast a broad match to catch any potential sex offenders and so it wanted a name only search so that it could then do its own due diligence to determine whether somebody was in fact the planner as introduced at trial search they want to know whether a record matches somebody and again what we're talking about here with the name only match initially is technical accuracy technical accuracy and so when it comes statements depending on the context may not necessarily preclude the report from being misleading here it did because the understated testimony at trial was that little league had requested name only reports it understood that it was receiving name only search results and there was no adverse action taken against the plaintiff the plaintiff had been coaching his son's little league team he was never instructed that he could no longer coach after the background report was returned and in fact he testified that nobody ever said anything to him about the background report in fact he didn't know if anybody  ever even seen it he himself had not seen it until trial and so again here the evidence was under spirted that there was  either undisputed by the defendant that the report was inaccurate or misleading or the plaintiff in that case had alleged or proven that the standard is an object it was that is can they report be expected to adversely affect the recipient of the report can it reasonably be expected to affect the that's what we're looking at right reasonable recipient of the information say the name match up therefore it's likely that this guy is a sex offender it isn't categor it out but in so far as we have this information this guy is probably a sex offender because bingo the name mack badge is up why isn't there enough to say trials show that little league understood that they were in a match with only and that it had to and in fact did conduct additional review and so it could not be objectively misleading to somebody and little league the evidence showed for mr o'connor testimony that little league had contracted specifically for these name only search results and wanted those to do its own due diligence and check the results itself literally mr contest money was a little league understood that it could not assume a match based on a st and last name only and again we see from mr erickson testimony at trial that the only reasonable inference is that that is what occurred here mr merritt i don't think i made my question clear did little league in this case we do diligence and go further or not in this case they did however mr erickson chose not to call little leagues witness at trial and so that's why we don't have been what's actually in the in the record evidence in the case is there record evidence that little league didn't simply rely on the name only match it did due diligence it went further and it discerned that this guy was not the guy who was the sex offender did they do that that is a reasonable inference from the evidence presented at trial your honor yes because mr erickson testified that he had been coaching for little league that as a condition of his coaching that he was required to get a background check to ensure that he was not a registered sex offender his background check was conducted it was completed and he was never told to cease coaching and so the only reasonable inference is that little league reviewed the background check and so mr erickson testified at trial that he finds that application defines an application and knowing that his father was a registered sex offender with the same st and last name that he had he consented to these results and therefore frankly he cannot now turn around and claim to be injured by the very information that he consented to being provided to little league and so for that reason independent of the other reasons we believe the judgment should be affirmed because he consented and and provided a release as any damages arising from that information but if we may continue mr erickson instead of disputing the accuracy of the information or the misleading nature of the information instead he focuses on saying that you determine accuracy not by whether statement is true or false and not by whether it's misleading or not but by whether you've placed someone else's record on a consumer report but section one thousand six hundred and eighty one e b is not about what kind of information may or may not be included in the report it's about accuracy and it's about reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information concerning the consumer now to his point that  the only information about the consumer may be on a report here he is conflating accuracy with information about the consumer and those are separate requirements as he himself acknowledged in its argument but  reporting agencies and provided remedies for consumers and under defamation law it won then recognize that super veil a plaintiff must identify a false and defamatory statement concerning yes your honor stork we under the law consent was a defense because another element of definition wall with you had to identify an unprivileged communication so not only did the communication have to be false and defamatory about the plaintiff it also had to be on privileged and a statement was privileged if it if there was consent to make that statement know your honor and again here we don't even need the court doesn't need to reach consent here this was a truthful nonis leading statement and the court affirm the judgment both on the ground that the lower court was accurate it was truthful or not materially misleading or on the ground that plaintiff failed to show any damages arising from  accurate statement in the consumer reports so the court our argument is not that a consumer reporting agency may make any statement it was based on consent in a court may not decide that  mcdonald argued as to damage st i don't know about the common law but the fair credit reporting act has been on the books for fifteen years and there is no precedent whatsoever that consumers c consent or most businesses couldn't agree me to lowering the standard of maximum possible accuracy or allowing reports to have information concerning other individuals by agreement and if the court goes there it will information or that was only wanted inaccurate information all the indications are is that the users want correct information issues whether allowing these disclaimers on applications on web sites you could imagine there will be everywhere issues whether that will lower the bar probably sooner reporting agencies to do their work to check all the a bailable information to assure the maximum level of accuracy so that when they erickson nor was it even placed on the report so little league could take a look and be able to exclude him let me ask you a question are what you just said literally comes to the st advantage  express when we commissioning you to do all the oly and names only search we are not asking you to go any further if we want to go further we will just will not do that limited inquiry because of the nature of the information while you're there with me and nd we will either go further or we will not take the commission to do this at all is that what they were do under this statute and i think the answer the question is yes in a word your honor now the statute doesn't require st advantage to take on any commission from little league or any customer but certainly the customer random names on associated with any one individual applying for a particular job or a particular position then i don't know that i can't comment on believe that the fair credit reporting act section i we're talking about here would be involved but the point here and it is a very important point is that it's not a question of what the customer wants or even whether the customer has a legitimate need for wanting a cast a you whether the agency has the statutory responsibility to assure the maximum level of accuracy because this information is explosive it is indicating that someone is a set of advantage on notice that it had to do more that it could not simply rely on a names or only search warrant that is what it was commissioned to do by literally what is there is that  to be sure your honor meant whether procedures are reasonable is always in your in question what st advantage would be guided by we have to do it a report about an individual they know that therefore the parameters of information that could be on your honor have to be closed all the information that concerns you and then once you have that information then the next step is are we following procedures that are sure the maximum possible level of accuracy for that information and i think those two words would guide personal vanity or any consumer warning agency away from the notion that they will just put anybody's information on a consumer report and only that information only based on a name as opposed to all the available information that could be used to assure maximum