Duncan v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.
123 N.E.3d 1249
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Karen Duncan received a FedEx retail receipt that printed the first two and last four digits of her 16-digit Visa card, allegedly violating FACTA’s prohibition on printing more than the last five digits.
- Duncan sued FedEx alleging willful FACTA violations on behalf of herself and a putative class, seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and fees.
- FedEx moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1, arguing Duncan lacked standing because inclusion of the first two digits (part of the issuer identification number) does not create a concrete, cognizable injury.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of standing, relying on federal appellate cases applying Spokeo to require concrete injury beyond bare procedural FACTA violations.
- On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed, holding Illinois standing doctrine permits statutory violations like FACTA to confer standing without separate proof of concrete harm and that Duncan adequately alleged willfulness.
- The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s finding that dismissal under section 2-619.1 was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duncan has standing to sue in Illinois state court for FACTA receipt violation | FACTA gives a private right for willful violations; printing more than 5 digits is the injury Congress intended to redress | No Article III–type concrete injury shown; mere procedural violation (first two/IIN digits) insufficient | Illinois court: Duncan has standing under Illinois law; statutory violation suffices without separate concrete harm |
| Whether federal Spokeo precedent controls state-court standing analysis | Spokeo does not bind Illinois standing approach; Congress elevated the harm via FACTA | Federal circuit decisions applying Spokeo should preclude suits absent concrete harm | Court declined to adopt federal courts’ Spokeo-based restriction for Illinois state courts |
| Whether FedEx’s alleged violation was willful as required for statutory damages under FACTA | Complaint sufficiently pleads willfulness | Argued insufficient allegations of willfulness | Court found trial court correctly determined facts alleged were sufficient and FedEx did not contest on appeal |
| Whether state courts must follow split federal authority on FACTA standing | State standing rules govern in state courts; federal split not dispositive | FedEx urged following federal majority requiring concrete injury | Court followed reasoning that Congressional prohibition in FACTA creates legally cognizable injury under Illinois law |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (federal standing requires a concrete, particularized injury; procedural violations may but do not automatically satisfy it)
- Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC, 843 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2016) (no Article III standing for FACTA claim based solely on printed expiration date)
- Collier v. SP Plus Corp., 889 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2018) (reaffirming need for concrete injury in federal FACTA suits)
- Crupar‑Weinmann v. Paris Baguette Am., Inc., 861 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2017) (no standing for mere expiration‑date printing under Spokeo)
- Katz v. Donna Karan Co., L.L.C., 872 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2017) (IIN digits do not cause concrete harm for Article III standing)
- Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 905 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2018) (FACTA creates a substantive right; willful printing of more than five digits causes concrete injury)
- Greer v. Illinois Housing Dev. Auth., 122 Ill. 2d 462 (Ill. 1988) (Illinois standing is nonjurisdictional and less restrictive than federal standing)
- Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211 (Ill. 1999) (Illinois requires only some injury in fact for standing; statutory violations suffice)