It's pretty close to the position we heard from them. They're not challenging our jurisdiction on the basis that they're in the U.S. or anything of the kind. They're challenging our jurisdiction on the basis that the terms and conditions we were examining did not, in their view, result in harm, and the absence of harm led to the absence of jurisdiction. We think that we have jurisdiction because we have jurisdiction to look at what I call the legal foundation, i.e. terms and conditions—
On May 7th, 2019. See this statement in context.