[brief] Thus, the Lower Court correctly held:  The arguments I asked Plaintiff during argument today, specifically to identify what if any actions of the defendants were alleged and it was conceded that the only action was the enforcing a loan that was void because they have no license.  Plaintiff relied on *Cox* for the proposition that mere – not mere but that, an improper debt or a lien may constitute a loss under the act because a defendant is not obligated to pay.  I’m still not convinced that, that would, in this case where no collection of that improper debt was made that it would constitute an ascertainable loss but even if it did.  And I say that based on other case law talking about ascertainable loss.  ...  I’m not aware of a case that has held that it does constitute an ascertainable loss and I’m not satisfied that, in this case where no payments were made, that it would satisfy the other elements of ascertainable loss.  (T57-8-22; T58-11-15).  Appellant attempts to argue that the Lower Court failed to consider the holding in *Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co.*, 138 N.J. 2, 23 (1994).  But, the Lower Court took *Cox* into consideration and held:  Plaintiff relied on *Cox* for the proposition that mere – not mere but that, an improper debt or a lien may constitute a loss under the act because a defendant is not obligated to pay.  I’m still not convinced that, that would, in this case where no collection of that improper debt was made that it would constitute an ascertainable loss but even if it did.  And I say that based on other case law talking about ascertainable loss.  Plaintiff must suffer a definite, certain and measurable loss rather than one that is merely theoretical .  . . . . .  Cox is a 1994 case.  I have not found or see any case after Cox, any published decision, holding that a deb or an invalid debt or lien, actually, did constitute a loss.  You know, in Cox, it may constitute a loss but it didn’t in that case because of facts – I’m not aware of a case that has held that it does constitute an ascertainable loss and I’m not satisfied that, in this case where no payments were made, that it would satisfy the other elements of ascertainable loss.  (T57-14-25; T58-6-15).  The Lower Court was correct - Appellant merely asserts that an “improper debt” constitutes a loss.  But, even if taken as true, without any evidentiary support that the payments made were more than owed, a loss does not exist merely by plaintiff paying money to defendant assignee as opposed to the originating lender, unless the originating lender later seeks payment, which here there is no allegation or evidence of here.  See Woo-Padva, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 96. at *10-11(holding money paid to a collection agency regardless of licensing status does not create an ascertainable loss unless the payments exceeded what was owed); see also Browne, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244537 at *8 (no ascertainable loss because no allegation or fact that the lack of license caused him to pay a single penny more than he would otherwise have paid).  Thus, Appellant failed to establish fraud in connection with the sale of merchandise or services and an ascertainable loss or that there was a causal relationship between Respondents’ conduct and that ascertainable loss.  For these reasons, the Lower Court correctly dismissed the Complaint.