Randy Long v. Tommy Hilfiger USA Inc
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1269
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Long filed a putative nationwide FACTA class action after Hilfiger printed EXPIRY: 04/## on a receipt for a $24.99 purchase; the receipt redacted all but the last four digits and showed the month but not the year of expiration.
- FACTA bars printing more than the last five digits of a card number or the expiration date on receipts; remedies depend on whether the violation is negligent or willful.
- District Court granted Hilfiger’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, holding that printing the month alone did not constitute printing an expiration date and that the violation was not willful.
- The 2008 Clarification Act created a safe harbor for certain pre-December 4, 2004–June 3, 2008 expirations, but did not alter the core prohibition or liability standard.
- Court interpreted “expiration date” as the numeric data in the expiration date field, holding that printing part of the expiration date still violates FACTA; willfulness requires an objectively unreasonable interpretation, which the court found Hilfiger did not meet.
- Decision: affirm the District Court’s dismissal on willfulness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether printing expiry month but not year states a FACTA claim | Long alleges any printing of expiration data violates 1681c(g)(1) | Hilfiger argues partial printing (month only) is not the expiration date | Yes, Long states a claim for violation |
| Whether the violation was willful under FACTA | Willfulness shown by awareness of the statute and intent to evade it | Hilfiger’s interpretation was reasonable; not objectively unreasonable | No willful violation; district court affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court 2007) (willfulness requires objectively unreasonable interpretation; not mere mistake)
- Fagin v. Gilmartin, 432 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2005) (deference in reviewing dismissal and statutory interpretation)
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. Seijas, 508 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation standard in remedial statutes)
- Idahoan Fresh v. Advantage Produce, Inc., 157 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 1998) (remedial statutes construed broadly to effectuate purpose)
- Shlahtichman v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 615 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2010) (application of willfulness and objective reasonableness)