Guarisma v. Microsoft Corp., 209 F. Supp. 3d 1261

Plaintiff Carlos Guarisma purchased a Microsoft Surface Pen Tip Kit in a Microsoft store and received a printed receipt showing the first six and last four digits of his credit card number plus his name and the salesperson's name.
The product packaging and receipt directed purchasers to an online Microsoft warranty, which contained a binding arbitration clause and class-action waiver that applied to disputes concerning the Microsoft hardware or accessory "whether in contract, warranty, tort, statute, regulation, ordinance, or any other legal or equitable basis."
Guarisma filed a putative class action under FACTA (15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)), alleging Microsoft printed more than the last five digits of his card number, seeking statutory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
Microsoft moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no concrete injury) and, alternatively, to compel individual arbitration under the warranty’s arbitration clause.
The court accepted the complaint’s allegations as true, analyzed standing under Spokeo and related precedent, and construed the warranty under Florida contract principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing: whether Guarisma suffered a concrete injury from a FACTA violation	FACTA created a substantive right to receive truncated receipts; printing full digits itself is a concrete statutory injury even without identity theft	No concrete injury because plaintiff suffered no actual identity theft or other tangible harm	Court held Guarisma has standing: FACTA confers a substantive right and receipt printing a statutory violation is a concrete, particularized injury (jurisdictional challenge denied)
Enforceability/scope of arbitration clause	Warranty applies only to users of the product; Guarisma never used or opened the product, so he did not assent; FACTA claim does not concern the product, its price, or the warranty	Warranty (and incorporated AAA rules) requires arbitration of disputes and Microsoft argues arbitration applicability should be decided by an arbitrator	Court held Guarisma did not agree to the warranty (no "use") and the FACTA claim falls outside the warranty’s scope; compelled arbitration denied

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (discusses concrete injury requirement for standing under Article III)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility required to survive dismissal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading rules and plausibility standard)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing: injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (statutory rights may give rise to injury-in-fact)
Hammer v. Sam’s E., Inc., 754 F.3d 492 (FACTA violation can constitute concrete injury)