This is page 2 of:
Macy’s Cites Privacy In Fighting D.A.’s CRM, POS Subpoena
“It should be noted that Macy’s does not have information as to every customer who purchased the (lead) product at issue. If a customer used a Macy’s proprietary credit card to purchase the product—either a Macy’s credit card or a Macy’s branded Visa—Macy’s retains such information, though such retention and any possible disclosure is governed by the terms of Macy’s privacy policy,” the filing said. “If a customer purchased the products on a credit card other than Macy’s, Macy’s may not have in its possession the customer’s personal contact information from the credit card transaction and thus may not have any documents reflecting that customer’s identity. Macy’s does not have information relating to the identities of those who purchased the products with cash.”
It’s interesting that the filing was so explicit that the chain did not have any relevant data for customers who paid cash. If a customer used their loyalty card and paid cash, wouldn’t that information still exist? Is Macy’s saying that it already checked and it just so happens that CRM files revealed anyone using cash to make the lead-laden purchase? It’s not clear.
The document gives the judge a few alternatives, including merely instructing that Macy’s contact those customers, which would avoid the public disclosure. Failing that, the document said the judge should limit the D.A.’s office for anything other than identifying witnesses and evidence “and prohibiting (the D.A.’s office) from abusing subpoena power by using it to notify Macy’s customers of alleged violations.” That last requirement seems to be asking the court to prevent the D.A.’s office from telling those consumers that they apparently have a poisonous piece of children’s jewelry, presumably being used by a child.
“The People’s only expressed reason for the documents described in the subpoena is a desire to communicate with Macy’s customers regarding a perceived, but unsubstantiated, allegation that, unless such a notice is sent out, the public safety will be threatened. This stated reason for compelling production is not valid in a false advertising case. The identification of customers who purchased the products at issue has no bearing on the facts that the People need to prove to establish the elements of this misdemeanor.”
The filing also challenges the Los Angeles official’s efforts to subpoena customer information from all across the country. “The District Attorney’s office has no jurisdiction to demand production of documents reflecting sales outside of Los Angeles county since he has no jurisdiction to prosecute such alleged violations.”
-Marc
April 10th, 2009 at 1:34 am
This situation shows the arrogance of this New York based company. They obviously have zero concern for the welfare of their customers children.
They could show concern and possibly defuse much of the problem by notifying as many customers as possible on their own (while still keeping names private).
My wife and I refuse to shop at Macys for 2 reasons. The 2nd may be part of their problem in this case.
1) They show East coast styles. We live on the West coast.
2) Their customer retention record keeping is shoddy. They took over our local chain department store in 1994. Closed it, rebuilt, and opened in 1996. We went in to buy a gift. We were told they canceled our credit card and destroyed the records because we had not shopped there for 2 years. I pointed out that they had closed the store for 2 years. That was the problem. They said “It makes no difference. You have to reapply.” Pure arrogance! Since 1996 we have found other places very willing to work for our business.
Back to the situation with the DA. The fact that they destroy records after a relatively short period of time may be their problem. It could be that the the further it goes the more they will have to reveal about shoddy practices. -Or it could just be arrogance.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Well I used to work there and I thought that you had to use a card within one year (not two) in order to keep an account active during any closures. Ultimately it is helpful for us to re-familiarize ourselves with the terms of any credit cards we use in order to prevent an easily avoidable problem such as this one from occurring. I do think that the measure is one that is in place to help prevent abuse of inactive accounts. And if someone had gotten a hold of your info during that closure and had run up a big bill you might have alternatively wondered why they would leave unused accounts active when they are known to be targets of identity theft criminals. So perhaps the assumptions about arrogance are misplaced as I don’t think that has anything at all to do with the decision to do whatever is within their ability to do to protect targeted account.