Appellate Court Hands Consumers a Win in Credit Card Receipt Case
WASHINGTON, July 10, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a district court's dismissal of a class action complaint involving a defendant's nationwide practice of unlawfully disclosing customers' full card numbers on receipts. Schlanger Law Group attorney Brian Herrington successfully argued that the act of printing more than the last 5 digits of the plaintiff's card number on a receipt in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) was sufficient to support Article III standing.
Doris Jeffries filed suit after receiving a receipt from Centerplate that showed her full credit card number, expiration date, and card provider. The district court dismissed the claim for lack of Article III standing, saying Jeffries had not suffered increased risk of identity theft since only she had seen the receipt, and the burden of safeguarding the non-compliant receipt was insufficient to constitute a concrete injury in fact.
The Appellate Court ruled that violation of FACTA's restriction on disclosing more than the last 5 digits of a card number on receipts, without more, constituted an injury in fact sufficient to support standing.
The court's analysis relied heavily on the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which established that "intangible injuries can nevertheless be concrete," and "violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact."
In ruling that plaintiff's alleged injury was sufficiently concrete to support standing, the Appellate Court determined that:
- The intangible harm had a close relationship to a harm traditionally regarded as a basis for suit in English or American courts—in this case, the common law tort of breach of confidence, and
- Weight should be given to Congress's determination that printing more than the last 5 digits of a card number on a receipt creates a "real" or "de facto" harm
In determining that the risk of harm was actual and imminent, the Court emphasized that plaintiff's claim did not rely on the increased risk of future identity theft. Rather, the harm asserted—violation of her statutory right to have her credit card information protected—has already occurred.
The ruling represents a significant victory for consumers, because restricting Article III standing to only those consumers who have already suffered a harm such as identity theft undermines the statutory protections Congress intended to provide, leaving most consumers whose rights are violated without recourse and weakening the incentive for those handling sensitive data to comply with the law.
About Schlanger Law Group LLP
Schlanger Law Group LLP is a consumer protection/consumer class action law firm with offices in Manhattan and Mississippi. We are dedicated to protecting consumer rights through individual and class action litigation under the FCRA, EFTA, FACTA, and other state and federal consumer financial protection statutes.
SOURCE Schlanger Law Group LLP
Share this article