please the court my name is russell thomson and i represent brad adams this case raises the issue of whether a debt collection letter that identifies the original creditor but does not specifically identify the current creditor violates the f t c p a this court has also current creditor and six hundred and ninety two dollars for using misleading and deceptive representations as to the identity of the current creditor congress and acted six hundred and ninety two g to protect consumers by requiring collectors to provide them with specific information about their debt as well as their regular legal rights regarding the same it enacted sixty and ninety two to eliminate abusive practices and ensure lawful debt collectors are not competitively disadvantage by prohibiting the use of all stepped up or misleading standing it merely clarified the standing analysis had it done so it would open the floodgates to litigation making over forty years of f e c ph opinions subject will fix the motions for lack of standing but here are the violations are not even procedural they're substantive and informative the supreme court long recognized legally protected and tryst and receiving information to satisfy the injury in fact a requirement it's also made clear that the right to not be given information satisfies the injury in fact requirement and public citizen held the refusal to provide information required to be six closed under the federal advisory committee act sufficiently constituted an injury in fact found the  inability to obtain information required by the federal election campaign act again with sufficient injury in fact in haven's reality it found the fair housing act barred misrepresentations about available housing even though it tester and found the plaintiff had standing because she alleged an andray to her statutorily created right to truthful housing information in ky and unplugged published opinion in this court followed this line of reasoning finding standing on the under another statue under the consumer protection act stating the truth in lending act protects a concrete interest in receiving accurate credit information thus an allegation that a lender provided an accurate truth in lending disclosures satisfies the injury and back requirement by referring to the original creditor here this guy gets letters either obscure or fail to identify the identity of the current creditor and this is precisely the information that congress mandated be provided and thus he has standing but he even has standing under the procedural violat analysis the st step of this court's analysis asks whether the provisions that issue were established to protect the plaintiffs concrete interests here there's no question that they were in swanson this court stated that congress added the validation of debts provision which is six thousand and ninety two specifically to ensure that collectors gave consumers adequate information concerning their legal rights to protect mister adams concrete interests and knowing the name of the current creditor this is important because the least if it's a chaotic consumer which is the standard for determining the the c p a does not know that the debt collector is required to provide this information and as indicated in the act congressional findings six thousand and ninety two you protect the consumers concrete interest in not being subject to all the stepped over misleading representation congress found such practices contribute to personal bankruptcies marital instability loss of jobs and invasions of privacy in patty the nd circuit yes he received a letter and he was on the shore who is current creditor wise and didn't even know that he needed to be looking for that information if you consume or all the wrong is that the or that he couldn't negotiate or anything like that right know because he he didn't know that he even had that information he received a letter isn't immediately contacted council to get legal advice on how to deal with the letters but but we believe that there's still the risk of harm there even even if the court finds that mister adams was not harmed which we believe he was we believe that courts across the country have explained the risk of harm and andersen versus ray klein that's what i was asking what tell me what consumer might very well be warned away from trying to settle as debt with the creditor directly this doesn't just hurt the consumer it illegally enhances the profitability of defendant at the expense of law abiding debt collectors which is exactly the sort of unfair competition the f t c p a was designed to counteract so here it's the same exact risk of harm again we think there's a risk of harm in that the consumer not receiving the information that they don't even know that they're to receive we can't presume the least if  consumer knows what congress told debt collectors they have to provide them so not getting the information the consumer is usually at risk of harm because it doesn't have all the available information to make a determination on what  three decided on a two step test the st step is whether the provisions that issue were established to protect the plaintiff concrete interests which i believe we've answered and the positive in the affirmative the nd step asks whether the specific procedural  violation actually harmed or presenting the material risk of harm so if it actually harmed mister adams he has standing or if it presented a material risk of harm he has standing so if you can prove either one of those or the court finds either one of those there standing you know explaining the risk of harm that congress intended here that's why i think the andersen opinion is relevant i think there's other risk of harm that the andersen court didn't consider  buyers pay a less than face value for debt so this knowledge is important to know whether it's owned by the original creditor or a debt buyer because there's a risk of harm and the consumer making a decision on how much money to offer the consumer also has to make a decision on whether to pay the debt or not if it's been sold to a debt buyer the consumer has that information to know that they likely have at least a somewhat less documented evidence to prove their case at trial but not knowing this information or being misled to it certainly doesn't do that and numerous circuits have found standing under these scenarios the nd circuit didn't put petty binding standing under the th circuit and macy followed it four months later the nd circuit decision of the nd circuit it again found standing on the same exact claims here noting a misrepresentation as the current creditor poses a risk of real harm in the th circuit church found standing under sixty in ninety two because congress created the right to receive the require disclosure and a new injury for not receiving such disclosures guy get rich refers to this court's unpublished opinion and davis we think that's irrelevant to perform and was simply remanded to the briefing was limited it is correct that bassett distinguished havens and federal election commission but the provision of that case did not consider kind of for a substantial right to a receipt here it did it was substantial right to get that information so in that case they could have printed no information also i think the nd circuit opinion on to c s is important well skag it uses that for their position we believe it's improperly decided and the and review with substantive information before does not permit receiving and reviewing to permits receiving the information of who the current creditor is and then making the decision under ga to request the name and address of the original creditor if that information is it's yes judge i'm here this appears to be an issue on mister masters and i have no indication of him being new to  er mister i might suggest that you make use of the phone number that was included in your connection information  can you hear me now yes excellent thank you so i think and i apologize i don't know why my microphone on my computer stopped working but  cannot be sufficient and is not sufficient to show that he sustained an injury in fact sufficient to give him standing to prosecute this case and for that reason the court last year was fiction and the case should be dismissed and i did standing that evaluations pretty straightforward on these facts and on this complaint that he left standing on the merits there's no real allegation that the letter is false plausible to say that this letter is likely to deceive or or your mislead a consumer letter as a district court found it was clear to any ordinary reader that this is a medical debt  way in theory i guess that's true but not but neither of those things was done in this case with that exactly so you went to the merits of the violation but maybe you want to talk more about whether that's necessary for standing who did it would be necessary for standing and what's out there with some tangible some tangible injury some something genuinely happened that mister adams did in the world to cause him harm that would create an injury in fact which would give him standing does it  proposition that the standing issue is a subject of inquiry looking at injury in fact to the lead plaintiff the named point of who allege based on a letter that is not false misleading or deceptive ok so st i'd like to say that standing is not always a subject of inquiry it can also be an objective and corey so this court adopted the test and spokeo on remand for standing for procedural violations again it's whether the statutory provision an issue with a stablish to protect the concrete interest were passed that step two is if so whether the specific procedural violations alleged in this case actually harm that is subject to subject or prevent a material risk of harm to such interest so it doesn't matter mister mister adams can have standing either way whether a tangible harm or intangible harm here and that's exactly what he's done he was harm as he pleads in his complaint he read the letter and he was under short who was creditor it was so that's where he has the actual standing but it prevented the material risk of harm as has been described in the other circuit the reliance on frank is misplaced the also makes multiple arguments regarding a sign i think the court should look at i believe the eastern district up in michigan's opinion and now where the court discussed the term ask any and the discussion of the knowledge of what that term meant the argument that the letter says is a professional debt collector i'm not sure what the defendant's argument is with with respect to that they're arguing that you can't be both a debt collector and a creditor well that's just patently wrong and this court has already decided that a indeed also be a debt collector because the principal purpose of their business is the collection of debt the reliance on mister thompson your extra three minutes is almost beyond your and smith they said by informing the debtor they can request the name of the original creditor if different from the current creditor the letter alerts the debtor the original and current creditor may be the same but it didn't take the next step step by step yeah they may be the same but they may be different