Federal Judge Rules Against Retailer In Credit Card Receipt Case

Written by Evan Schuman
May 10th, 2007

The ongoing lawsuits against major retailers for printing prohibited information on credit card receipts is allowed to proceed, with judge describing a key retail defense “absurd” and “bizarre.”

As a series of lawsuits against some of the nation?s largest retailers for illegally revealing too much credit card information on printed receipts winds its way through the courts, one federal judge has ruled that some key retail defenses are “absurd” and “unreasonable.”

In a decision handed down May 3, U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess ruled for the consumer plaintiffs in one of the cases and against Adidas retail operations. His ruling allowed the lawsuits to proceed intact.

In the initial lawsuits filed early this year, some 50 of the nation?s top retailers?including Rite Aid, Harry & David, Ikea, KB Toys, Disney, Regal Cinemas and AMC Theaters?were accused of printing full credit numbers and/or expiration dates on printed customer receipts, violating a provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA).

Although there are many consumer plaintiffs and many retail defendants, the arguments on both sides in the cases is similar. Feess’s ruling focused on some of the key retail defenses to the accusations, including that the statute is vaguely worded and might prohibit both an expiration date and a full card number appearing, but not either.

The arguments are critical because many retailers have been caught printing the receipts with the forbidden data so if they can’t prevail with legal arguments, they could face mountains of fines. Even worse, despite POS vendor assurances, the forbidden data is still periodically appearing. (Two of those POS vendors have recently been sued by retailers, for not having technologically protected them.)

In the Adidas case, Frees addressed the retail claim that the statute’s wording could be interpreted multiple ways.

“The question here is essentially whether (the law) is sufficiently clear that its prohibitions would be understood by an ordinary person operating a profit-driven business. The judge ruled that the FACTA section easily meets this standard because its words have only one reasonable meaning. “No person . . . shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon ‘any receipt” clearly means that (1) no person shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number, and (2) no person shall print the expiration date. In other words, a retailer must print no more than 5 digits of a card number, and also must omit the expiration date – doing either violates the statute.”

The judge then shot down the Adidas arguments that the law is confusingly worded. “Adidas attempts to obfuscate this plain meaning by advancing two ‘competing’ interpretations that border on the absurd. First, Adidas contends that the statute could be read to ‘allow a business to print the credit card’s expiration date on the receipt so long as no more than the last 5 digits of the card appear.’ Second, Adidas argues it could be read so that the phrase ‘last 5 digits’ modifies both ‘card number’ and ‘expiration date,’ and thus that a business would be in compliance so long as it truncated the card number and printed only the last five digits of the expiration date. Each interpretation is bizarre,” the judge wrote.

“The first ignores the plain reference to ‘the expiration date,’ essentially by contending that Congress prohibited only printing both an untruncated card number and an expiration date on the same receipt” the judge said. “This would lead to the absurd result that a firm could print an entire card number so long as it omitted the expiration date. No reasonable person would think that this was Congress’ intent.”


One Comment | Read Federal Judge Rules Against Retailer In Credit Card Receipt Case

  1. Chris Says:

    Agreeing for the sake of discussion that the law prohibits printing the expiration date on a receipt, what would be the harm in so doing, if that were the only thing printed?


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.