Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 21, 2018

Steven Bassett, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ABM Parking Services, Inc., DBA ABM Onsite Services - West, DBA AMPCO System Parking; ABM Onsite Services - West, Inc.; ABM Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

          Submitted December 5, 2017 [*] Seattle, Washington

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00947-TSZ

          Darrell L. Cochran and Christopher E. Love, Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC, Tacoma, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

          Ryan P. McBride, Abraham K. Lorber, and Randall P. Beighle, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, Washington, for Defendants-Appellees.

          Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, M. Margaret McKeown, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY [**]

         Standing / Fair Credit Reporting Act

         The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal due to lack of standing in a putative class action alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when the plaintiff received a credit card receipt displaying the card's full expiration date.

         In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), the Supreme Court held that to have Article III standing when alleging only a statutory violation, a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury in fact.

         The panel joined the Second and Seventh Circuits in affirming dismissal under identical circumstances, and held that the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury in fact sufficient to give him standing. The panel held that when the plaintiff received the credit card receipt and there was no identity thief there to snatch it, there was no injury.

          OPINION

          MCKEOWN, CIRCUIT JUDGE:

         Today we answer a question that would certainly sound exotic to our nation's founders: Is receiving an overly revealing credit card receipt-unseen by others and unused by identity thieves-a sufficient injury to confer Article III standing?

         In response to growing credit card fraud and identity theft, Congress enacted a series of protective laws. When Steven Bassett used his credit card at an ABM parking garage, he received a receipt displaying the card's full expiration date-a violation of the requirement that businesses redact certain credit card information on printed receipts. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). Bassett sued but alleged only a statutory violation and a potential for exposure to actual injury. Like the district court, we conclude that Bassett failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to give him standing. In doing so, we join the Second and Seventh Circuits in affirming dismissal under identical circumstances. See Crupar-Weinmann v. Paris Baguette Am., Inc., 861 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2017); Meyers v. Nicolet Rest. of De Pere, LLC, 843 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2016).

         Background

         The legislative backdrop for this case centers on FACTA and FCRA. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952, amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") to limit the information printed on receipts: "[N]o person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction."[1]15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). The statute provides that "[a]ny person who willfully fails to comply with [that requirement] with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer" for statutory damages of between $100 and $1, 000 per violation or "any actual damages sustained by the consumer, " costs and attorney's fees, and potential punitive damages. Id. § 1681n.

         Following the passage of FACTA, consumers filed a spate of lawsuits against merchants who printed receipts showing credit card expiration dates. In response, Congress enacted the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act (the "Clarification Act"), Pub. L. No. 110-241, 122 Stat. 1565 (2008). The Clarification Act reiterated that the FCRA prohibits the printing of receipts bearing a card's expiration date. Id. at 1566. But the congressional findings also noted that "hundreds of lawsuits were filed alleging that the failure to remove the expiration date was a willful violation of the [FCRA] even where the account number was properly truncated, " and "[n]one of these lawsuits contained an allegation of harm to any consumer's identity." Id. at 1565. Congress went on to find that "[e]xperts in the field agree that proper truncation of the card number, by itself as required by the [FCRA], regardless of the inclusion of the expiration date, prevents a potential fraudster from perpetrating identity theft or credit card fraud." Id.

         To "ensure that consumers suffering from any actual harm to their credit or identity are protected while simultaneously limiting abusive lawsuits, " the Clarification Act granted a temporary reprieve for merchants: "[A]ny person who printed an expiration date on any receipt . . . between December 4, 2004, and [June 3, 2008], " but otherwise complied with the card number truncation requirements, did not willfully violate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.