Crupar-Weinmann v. Paris Baguette America, Inc.
861 F.3d 76
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Devorah Crupar‑Weinmann bought food at Paris Baguette in 2013 and received a receipt showing her card expiration date, allegedly violating FACTA (15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)).
- Amended complaint alleged Paris Baguette routinely printed expiration dates and that this created an increased risk of identity theft; no actual identity theft or other concrete harm was alleged.
- District court initially dismissed for failure to plausibly plead willfulness; after Spokeo the case was remanded, plaintiff amended, and the district court dismissed again for lack of Article III standing.
- Key statutory context: FACTA prohibits printing more than the last five digits or the expiration date on receipts; the 2007 Clarification Act stated that inclusion of expiration dates, when account numbers are truncated, does not materially increase identity theft risk.
- On appeal the Second Circuit considered whether a bare procedural FACTA violation (printing expiration date) can constitute a concrete injury in fact under Spokeo and Second Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether printing an expiration date on an otherwise redacted receipt (a bare procedural FACTA violation) constitutes a concrete injury in fact for Article III standing | Crupar‑Weinmann: FACTA’s prohibition reflects Congress’s intent to prevent identity theft; printing the expiration date increased risk of identity theft and thus suffices as injury | Paris Baguette: Inclusion of an expiration date on a properly truncated receipt does not materially increase identity‑theft risk and thus a bare procedural violation without concrete harm does not create standing | The court held no standing: Congress expressly found expiration dates do not materially increase identity‑theft risk; a bare procedural violation absent a material risk or concrete harm fails Spokeo’s requirement for injury in fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (a bare procedural statutory violation does not automatically satisfy Article III; courts must assess whether the alleged procedural violation presents a material risk of real harm)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes the three elements of Article III standing including that injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016) (applying Spokeo: a procedural violation can be concrete when Congress sought to protect a concrete interest and the procedural lapse presents a material risk of harm)
- Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC, 843 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that printing an expiration date on an otherwise properly redacted receipt does not materially increase identity‑theft risk and thus does not confer standing)
- Donoghue v. Bulldog Inv’rs Gen. P’ship, 696 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of standing under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6))