The Bell Tolls for Some FACTA Class Actions
Since certain of its provisions became effective in December 2006, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") has spawned a torrent of class actions around the country based primarily on alleged technical violations of the new law, enacted primarily as a protection against identity theft. Many of these cases centered on technical ambiguities in the statute and related regulations that left open serious questions, like whether a merchant who properly truncated a credit card number, but failed to omit the card's expiration date, had willfully failed to comply with FACTA. (See 15 U.S.C. 1681g.)
On June 3, 2008, President Bush signed the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act, retroactively amending the statute "to declare that any person who printed an expiration date on any receipt provided to a consumer cardholder at a point of sale (POS) or transaction between December 4, 2004, and the enactment of this Act, but otherwise complied with FCRA requirements for such receipt, shall not be in willful noncompliance by reason of printing such expiration date on it."
This revision does not remove all liability in this circumstance—a merchant may still be liable for actual damages for a negligent violation—but the amendment significantly reduces the prospect of onerous statutory penalties for a willful violation and, as a result, makes class certification in these cases less likely.
On June 3, 2008, President Bush signed the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act, retroactively amending the statute "to declare that any person who printed an expiration date on any receipt provided to a consumer cardholder at a point of sale (POS) or transaction between December 4, 2004, and the enactment of this Act, but otherwise complied with FCRA requirements for such receipt, shall not be in willful noncompliance by reason of printing such expiration date on it."
This revision does not remove all liability in this circumstance—a merchant may still be liable for actual damages for a negligent violation—but the amendment significantly reduces the prospect of onerous statutory penalties for a willful violation and, as a result, makes class certification in these cases less likely.
Trackbacks (0)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://www.consumerfinancelitigation.com/admin/trackback/78976
http://www.consumerfinancelitigation.com/admin/trackback/78976
Comments (0)
Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.
