Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc.
195 Cal. App. 4th 986
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Folgelstrom alleges Lamps Plus asks for ZIP codes to obtain home addresses for marketing and shares data with Expelían for mailing lists.
- Plaintiff asserts Lamps Plus misrepresents ZIP-code collection and uses ZIP, name, and card number to obtain addresses for marketing.
- Plaintiff asserts four claims: Credit Card Act violation, privacy rights (constitutional and common-law), and unfair competition law (UCL).
- Trial court sustained Lamps Plus’s demurrer on all but the Credit Card Act claim, citing Party City’s view that ZIP codes are not personal identification information.
- California Supreme Court in Pineda holds that requesting and recording a cardholder’s ZIP code, without more, violates the Credit Card Act, requiring reversal of the demurrer on that claim.
- On appeal, this court reverses as to the Credit Card Act claim and remands for overrule of the demurrer; the remaining three claims are upheld as properly sustained demurrers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZIP code as PDII under Credit Card Act | Folgelstrom argues ZIP codes are personal identification information under the Act. | Lamps Plus relies on Party City to contend ZIP is not PDII. | Credit Card Act claim viable; reversal granted. |
| Constitutional privacy right viability | Plaintiff asserts invasion of home/privacy rights through address collection and mailings. | Lamps Plus contends no legally protected privacy interest in home address in this context. | No legally protected privacy interest, or not a serious invasion; demurrer upheld. |
| Common-law invasion of privacy | Obtaining ZIP and using it for marketing constitutes intrusion into private data. | No highly offensive intrusion or improper use beyond routine marketing; no actionable intrusion. | Not highly offensive intrusion; demurrer upheld. |
| UCL standing post-Proposition 64 | Loss of address constitutes injury in fact and restitution under UCL. | No out-of-pocket loss; address not property; no economic injury shown. | No economic injury; demurrer upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 524 (Cal. 2011) (ZIP code collection violates Credit Card Act)
- Party City Corp. v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.4th 497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (ZIP code not personal identification information)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (injury-in-fact requires economic injury for UCL)
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 208 (Cal. 1998) (Restatement of torts intrusion standard)
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (privacy invasion standards; reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.App.4th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (privacy in discovery context)
- Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol, 181 Cal.App.4th 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (publication of private information)
- Urbaniak v. Newton, 226 Cal.App.3d 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (privacy of private data examples)
- Susan S. v. Israels, 55 Cal.App.4th 1290 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (confidential mental health records; privacy)