9th Circuit Defines FACTA Scope for Electronic Receipts
In Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc. (9th Cir. May 24, 2010), the Ninth Circuit held that an “electronically printed” receipt under FACTA does not include an email receipt displayed on a computer screen.
Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) in 2003, as an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. FACTA restricts the electronic printing of more than the last five digits of a credit card number or card expiration dates, on receipts provided to the cardholder at the point of sale.
In Simonoff, plaintiff purchased travel arrangements online through Expedia’s website. Expedia subsequently emailed a receipt for the purchase to the plaintiff, which included the expiration date of plaintiff’s credit card. Plaintiff sued, claiming that the email receipt sent by Expedia violated FACTA. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the court considered the plain meaning of the words “print” and “electronically printed” under FACTA. The court looked to dictionary definitions and standard modern usage of the terms to conclude that the ordinary meaning of “print” or “electronically printed” is the physical imprint onto paper or another tangible medium, and that a printed receipt is thus a receipt that exists in physical form and not one electronically displayed on a screen. Furthermore the court concluded that statutory context also confirmed that the word “print” limits FACTA to receipts printed on a tangible medium. The court cited a Seventh Circuit opinion for support and noted that the solid majority of district courts, that have addressed FACTA’s scope, are in agreement. The court affirmed the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit.
Editor's note: This article was co-written by Priscilla Taylor, a summer law clerk in the Firm's San Francisco office.
http://www.consumerfinancelitigation.com/admin/trackback/253875
