Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.
51 Cal. 4th 524
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Pineda sued Williams-Sonoma under Civ. Code § 1747.08 alleging the store asked for and recorded her ZIP code during a credit card transaction and that the retailer later used the data to locate her address.
- Defendant allegedly used software to match her name and ZIP code to her address, then marketed or sold the information.
- Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, relying on Party City Corp. v. Superior Court to hold a ZIP code is not personal identification information.
- Statute § 1747.08 prohibits requesting or recording personal identification information, and defines such information as including the cardholder’s address and telephone number.
- The Court held ZIP code falls within personal identification information under § 1747.08, disapproving Party City and applying broad statutory construction and legislative history to favor consumer protection.
- Legislative history shows the Act’s purpose to protect privacy and prevent end-runs around the statutory protections by broad interpretation of protected information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a cardholder ZIP code constitute personal identification information under §1747.08? | Pineda argues ZIP code is personal identification information under §1747.08, thus its request and recording violate the statute. | Williams-Sonoma argues ZIP code is not listed in §1747.08(b) as personal identification information, so the Act does not apply. | Yes; ZIP code is personal identification information under §1747.08(b), and its request/recording violates the Act. |
| Should §1747.08 be read broadly to include ZIP codes, considering the statute’s purpose and history? | Pineda contends the statute’s remedial purpose supports a broad reading that protects privacy. | Williams-Sonoma argues the Court of Appeal’s narrower reading is correct under ejusdem generis and statutory text. | Yes; the broad construction reflects the statute’s protective purpose and legislative history. |
| Did the legislative history support retroactive application of the broader interpretation? | Pineda relies on historical amendments showing intent to prohibit soliciting/recording information unnecessary to the transaction. | Williams-Sonoma contends retroactivity is improper or unnecessary to resolve the issue. | The broader interpretation aligns with legislative history and is applied retrospectively. |
Key Cases Cited
- Party City Corp. v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 4th 497 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Div. 1 (2008)) (address/ZIP scope rejected under narrower view; later disapproved in this opinion)
- Florez v. Linens 'N Things, Inc., 108 Cal. App. 4th 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. (2003)) (protective purpose of Credit Card Act emphasized)
- Absher v. AutoZone, Inc., 164 Cal. App. 4th 332 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. (2008)) (discussed legislative history and broad protection of PII)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (penalties not fixed; statutory interpretation principles cited)
- Lungren v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.4th 294 (Cal. 1996) (civil statutes generally construed in favor of public protection)