Consumer Law

In the first decision I am aware of on the issue, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania applied the primary provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) to in-box receipts provided as part of a mail order transaction.  Ehrheart v. Bose Corp., 2008 WL 64491 (W.D. Pa. Jan 4., 2008).  Section 1681c(g) of FACTA provides that "no person that accepts credit or debit cards. . . shall print more than the last five digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction."  15 U.S.C. sec. 1681c(g).   The statute became effective in two phases, (2003 and 2006), and the Federal Trade Commission has  warned merchants about their compliance obligations as recently as mid-2007.

The plaintiff purchased headphones from the Bose Factory Store by phone using her credit card.  When she received the headphones by mail a few days later, the box contained a printed receipt with her credit card number truncated, but which showed her credit card's expiration date.  Though she was not injured as a result of the non-compliance, she filed a class action complaint.  The Court noted that this lawsuit was one of several filed by Ehrheart and one of more than a dozen filed by her counsel. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, attorneys fees, and costs.

Bose moved for summary judgment arguing it did not provide the receipt at the "point of sale," therefore, it was not required to comply with the receipt requirements of FACTA.  To Bose "point of sale" referred to "a precise location within a store."  Not surprisingly, plaintiff advanced a different theory, that as used in FACTA, point of sale referred to the point in time when an exchange between the merchant and customer takes place. Unable to find any controlling authority defining point of sale, the Court found that the broader reading of the statute advanced by plaintiff was consistent with the purpose of FACTA.  The purpose of FACTA is to prohibit merchants from including unnecessary sensitive information on sales receipts.  Such information is unnecessary to the transaction, and exposes the consumer to the risk of identity theft, irrespective of where the merchant provides the receipt.  Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment.