Over a strong dissent, the 11th Cir. Panel that issued the Hunstein decision affirmed the prior decision, holding “(1) that the violation of § 1692c(b) alleged in this case gives rise to a concrete injury in fact under Article III, and (2) that the debt collector’s transmittal of the consumer’s personal information to its dunning vendor constituted a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” within the meaning of § 1692c(b).” A copy of the 11th Circuit’s decision can be found at https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914434.op2.pdf Judge Tjoflat dissented, saying that “When we originally held that Hunstein had standing, the Su-preme Court had not yet issued its opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. Now, with the benefit of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in TransUnion, I have changed my mind because this Court’s standing analysis sweeps much more broadly than TransUnion would allow.”