May 24, 2012

Reminder to Merchants: Your Receipts Must Truncate Credit and Debit Card Numbers as well as Expiration Dates

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), a federal statute that became effective six years ago, continues to fuel class action lawsuits against merchants. Under the statute, merchants are responsible for truncating the credit card number and expiration date on customer copies of electronically generated credit card receipts so that no more than the last five digits of the credit card number are visible. The expiration date must be removed in its entirety. The statute states that "no 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 sale or transaction."

Violations can be costly. If they are found to be "willful," merchants are exposed to liability of between $100 and $1,000 per violation, plus attorney fees and costs. Since a violation occurs each time a non-compliant receipt is issued—and many merchants issue dozens, if not hundreds, of receipts per day—potential liability can reach many millions of dollars for retailers found to have "willfully" violated the statute.

To date, the courts have rejected most defense arguments seeking to dismiss FACTA class action complaints at the pleading stage. Among other things, courts have held that a simple allegation that the retailer "knew or should have known" of FACTA's requirements, along with allegations that the retailer was informed of the statute's requirements, is sufficient to plead a "willful" violation of the statute and survive a motion to dismiss.

As a result, the cases are proceeding beyond the pleading stage to discovery and class certification issues, with most courts demonstrating a willingness to certify these cases and allow them to proceed on behalf of a "class" of all customers who were issued non-compliant receipts. In addition, if there is any evidence that the merchant might have or should have known about FACTA's requirements, the courts are denying motions for summary judgment and allowing the cases to proceed toward trial. Not surprisingly, many merchants who are accused of violating the statute are forced to settle, rather than risk uncertainty and continued exposure to liability and legal fees.

Although litigation in this area has slowed somewhat over the years since the statute was enacted, some merchants and their credit card processing companies may still not know about FACTA's requirements. Merchants, especially smaller ones, may rely on credit card equipment companies to program and update their credit card equipment. As a result, some merchants may assume the machines they are using are "compliant" with relevant laws when, unfortunately, they are not.

Therefore, as you head into the new year, it is a good idea to perform an audit to ensure that your electronically printed customer credit and debit card receipts contain no more than the last five digits of your customers' credit card numbers and that the credit card receipts do not include the credit card expiration date. Such an assessment may be particularly important for merchants whose machines have recently been "updated" and for those who have recently switched to a new credit card processing company. Checking customer copies of receipts yourself is a good place to start. Legal counsel can also be very helpful in determining whether or not your company's credit card receipts are compliant.

© 2012 Much Shelist, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

Melinda J. Morales, a Principal in the firm’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice group, represents both plaintiffs and defendants in a range of complex commercial litigation matters in state and federal courts. Her practice encompasses a wide variety of civil trial and appellate matters involving general business litigation, insurance coverage issues and class actions.

312-521-2434

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.