Williams-Sonoma Skates On ZIP Code Privacy Lawsuit, Federal Judge Rules

Written by Mark Rasch
November 2nd, 2011

Attorney Mark D. Rasch is the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s computer crime unit and today serves as Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting at CSC in Virginia.

About a year ago, Williams-Sonoma got into legal trouble in California for having its cashiers ask people using credit cards to provide their ZIP codes (to be used for marketing purposes) in violation of a California statute that made it unlawful to ask for “personal information” as a condition of accepting a credit card. In late September, a federal court in New Jersey let Williams-Sonoma off the hook for doing the exact same thing in the Garden State, leaving the state of the law of ZIP codes at best uncertain.

Several states have laws that restrict either in whole or in part the use of certain personal information as a condition of accepting a credit card. For example, NJ Stat. Ann. 56:11-17 provides in relevant part that, “No person which accepts a credit card for a consumer transaction shall require the credit card holder, as a condition of using a credit card in completing the consumer transaction, to provide for recordation on the credit card transaction form or any other form, any personal identification information that is not required by the issuer to complete the credit card transaction, including, but not limited to, the credit card holder’s address or telephone number, or both; provided, however, that the credit card holder’s telephone number may be required on a credit card transaction form if the credit card transaction is one for which the credit card issuer does not require authorization.”

This language is virtually identical to the language the California Supreme Court upheld when it declared that Williams-Sonoma’s collection of ZIP codes constituted “personal identification information” and, therefore, a violation of California law. So why would the Kardashians win in Beverly Hills but Snookie lose in Asbury Park?

Unlike California law, the New Jersey statute did not itself create a “private right of action.” In other words, what the law said was that merchants were prohibited from collecting personal information; if they did so, well, there was nothing you could do about it. The state itself, either through a prosecutor or the Attorney General, would have to sue to enforce the statute—an “injured” party could not. So in the New Jersey case, called Kerry Feder v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, the plaintiffs attempted to sue in a class action case under a different New Jersey statute—the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act—which the court noted “prohibits any seller from offering, entering into, giving or displaying a written consumer contract or notice that violates a clearly established right of the consumer or responsibility of the seller as established by New Jersey or Federal law.”

So Feder argued there was a right to privacy under New Jersey law. And that right included the right not to be asked for or to be forced to produce personal information (including ZIP code) and, therefore, the actions of Williams-Sonoma violated that right.

Aye, there’s the rub. The New Jersey TCCWNA (say it three times fast) requires a written contract, which violates a consumer’s right. The only thing written was the sales receipt, which contained the consumer’s ZIP code—and that wasn’t a contract itself, but evidence of a contract. Even though the plaintiff may have been required to give up her right to privacy (in violation of New Jersey law) as a condition of entering into the contract, that requirement was oral (the clerk saying “give me your ZIP code”) not in writing as the statute requires. Therefore, no violation of TCCWNA, no class action, no lawsuit.

Of course, Williams-Sonoma and other merchants in New Jersey are not necessarily out of the woods. If asking for ZIP code information in New Jersey is “personal information” and if asking for it violates New Jersey law, it is possible that Williams-Sonoma or others could be in trouble with Paula Dow, the New Jersey Attorney General. But at least they don’t have to worry (for the moment) about potential class actions.

In light of the California and New Jersey ZIP code rulings, merchants should do a state-by-state evaluation of laws relating to the collection of personal information (like possibly ZIP codes), along with the remedies afforded by these states, and adjust their data collection practices accordingly. And, at least in Joyzey, “don’t put it in writing.”

If you disagree with me, I’ll see you in court, buddy. If you agree with me, however, I would love to hear from you.


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.