Doris Jeffries v. Volume Services America, Inc.
928 F.3d 1059
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- Doris Jeffries received a Centerplate receipt showing her full 16‑digit credit card number and expiration date after a purchase.
- She sued under FACTA (15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1)), alleging willful violation of the truncation rule and increased risk of identity theft; claimed she had to safeguard the receipt.
- Centerplate moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing; the district court granted the motion, finding no concrete injury.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed standing de novo, with causation and redressability undisputed; the core question was whether Jeffries alleged an injury in fact.
- The court held FACTA protects a concrete interest in avoiding an increased risk of identity theft and found Jeffries’ receipt—containing full card number and expiration date—allegedly created a concrete injury at the point of sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a FACTA truncation violation can by itself constitute an Article III injury in fact | Jeffries: FACTA creates a concrete statutory right to avoid increased risk of identity theft; a violation of that right is a concrete injury | Centerplate: No concrete injury because no identity theft occurred and Jeffries safeguarded the receipt | Court: Yes—Congress protected against increased risk; FACTA violation here (full number + expiration) alleges a concrete injury |
| Whether the particular statutory violation at issue actually caused a risk of real harm | Jeffries: Full 16 digits + expiration creates a real, non‑speculative risk at point of sale | Centerplate: Any risk was mitigated by Jeffries’ actions; no imminent harm occurred | Court: Mitigation after the fact doesn’t negate the concrete injury at the point of sale; plausible risk alleged |
| Whether lesser FACTA violations (e.g., only printing expiration date or a few extra digits) are sufficient for standing | Jeffries: Congress set truncation at last 5 digits as the tolerable risk level | Centerplate: Even technical violations may be benign and insufficient for standing | Court: Not all violations suffice; expiration‑only violations have been held non‑concrete by other circuits, but the egregious facts here (all digits + expiration) are sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (framework for concreteness of statutory injuries)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury‑in‑fact elements)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (Congress may create statutory rights conferring standing)
- Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 922 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 2019) (FACTA protects against risk; Congress set tolerable risk at last five digits)
- Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2019) (no standing where receipt did not include enough information to enable identity theft)
- Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (analysis of when procedural statutory violations can be concrete)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (statutory deprivation of a right can constitute injury in fact)