POS Vendors Now Targeted In Credit Card Receipt Error Case

Written by Evan Schuman
May 2nd, 2007

Following lawsuits in February against some of the nation’s largest retailers for illegally revealing too much credit card information on printed receipts, two of those retailers are now suing their POS vendors.

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 expiration dates on printed customer receipts, violating a provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) that makes it illegal for a retailer to print more than the last five digits or a credit/debit card number and it also forbids printing the card’s expiration data on that receipt. The rule took effect in phases, but by December 2006, the latest of its phases kicked in.

In the last couple of weeks, two of those retail defendants?Charlotte Russe and Shoe Pavillion?have sued their POS vendors, saying that the retailer relied on them and if the retailer is liable, then the POS vendor should pay for it.

Shoe Pavillion sued Datavantage Inc. in Ohio, saying that the receipt errors were because of “active acts or omissions” of Datavantage and was a result of how the POS vendor “designed, constructed, manufactured, installed, owned, maintained, operated, modified, sold, altered, treated, serviced or repaired the equipment and software in question, whereas the acts or omissions of Shoe Pavillion, if any, were passive only.”

Charlotte Russe sued its POS vendor, a Scottsdale, Arizona, company called Computer Dynamics Inc. The Russe case is a little different, because the lawsuit said that Computer Dynamics not only knew about the law change, but specifically told the retailer that the change needed to happen “to comply with statutory requirements.”

The POS vendor, according to the Charlotte Russe lawsuit, “breached their obligation under the sales contracts to provide software that deleted the expiration date on the receipt for the customer” and that Computer Dynamics “failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in designing, programming and providing the computer programs to Charlotte Russe and neglected to program the deletion of the expiration date on the receipt for the customer as required by state and federal law.”

The retail defendants in this case have been arguing various defenses in legal filings, ranging from ignorance of the law to software reliance to isolated pockets of out-of-date software to last minute system changes that inadvertently changed the settings for credit card number truncation, also known as masking, said J. Mark Moore, a Los Angeles attorney suing many of the retailers in this case.


Comments are closed.


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.