Overview
In an opinion Wednesday, Judge Crotty dismissed a class action accusing a retailer of violating a law (referred to as “FACTA”) requiring that no more than the final five digits of credit cards be printed on receipts. The plaintiff allegedly received receipts exposing 10 digits. Judge Crotty found that the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Spokeo. Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) made clear that a statutory violation, without more, was insufficient to confer standing:
[T]he substantive "truncation right" alleged by Plaintiff is irreconcilable with Spokeo's holding that not all statutory violations confer Article III standing. Moreover, there is no evidence that Congress, in enacting FACTA, intended to create for consumers a substantive right to receive a redacted copy of their credit card receipt; rather, the truncation requirement is a means to the end goal of identity theft prevention . . . . Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing that he experienced the Congressionally-proscribed harm: identity theft. He has not established a present injury in fact . . .Judge Crotty also rejected the argument that the plaintiff faced an increased risk of identity theft:
[W]hile an increased risk of identity theft may, in some instances, constitute a concrete harm, those circumstances are not alleged here. Plaintiff fails to allege that anyone aside from the store employees who handed Plaintiff the receipt, Plaintiff, and his lawyer ever saw either receipt; or that his identity or other financial information was stolen or lost; or even that the risk of such events is imminent. As Defendants point out, "[t]he 30 injury-free months that have passed since the receipts were handed to [Plaintiff] belie any belated claim of imminence."
