Capp v. Nordstrom, Inc.
2:13-cv-00660
| E.D. Cal. | Oct 22, 2013Background
- Capp, on behalf of himself and others, sues Nordstrom for alleged violation of California’s Song–Beverly Credit Card Act by requesting and recording his email address to issue an e-receipt and then sending unsolicited marketing emails.
- Plaintiff alleges the retailer used the email address to obtain further personal information and to engage in marketing and data resale, potentially reverse-adding data.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court and moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing email addresses are not personal identification information and that CAN-SPAM preempts state law.
- Court analyzes whether email addresses fall within personal identification information and whether California’s act is preempted by CAN-SPAM, applying California choice-of-law rules in a diversity-like context.
- Court ultimately denies Nordstrom’s motion in part, and the complaint is deemed amended to seek only civil penalties and to omit injunctive relief and jury trial.
- Facts are drawn from the complaint and exhibit summaries showing the transaction, email collection, receipt delivery, and subsequent promotional emails.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether email address is personal identification information | Email address falls within 1747.08(b) as information concerning the cardholder | Email address is not listed as PIN information and may be too changeable/indirect | Email address constitutes PIN information under 1747.08(b) |
| Whether conduct violated the California Credit Card Act | Requesting/recording email for receipt and using it for marketing violates the Act | Request may fall within the special-purpose exception for incidental information related to the transaction | Plaintiff states a claim; the issue requires factual development on reasonableness of the belief and exception applicability |
| Whether CAN-SPAM preempts the California Credit Card Act claim | CAN-SPAM does not preempt state laws prohibiting collection of PII like email addresses | CAN-SPAM express preemption precludes state law limitations on email collection | No express or conflict preemption; CAN-SPAM does not bar the California claim; preemption denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 525 (Cal. 2011) (broadly interprets 'personal identification information' to protect privacy)
- Apple, Inc. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2013) (online transactions interpretation of 1747.08; technology not fatal to applicability)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible claims beyond mere conclusory statements)
- Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1996) (requiring fair notice and plausible grounds for relief)
- Kairy v. SuperShuttle Int’l, 660 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2011) (predicting California Supreme Court decisions when no controlling precedent exists)