Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10374
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Simonoff purchased travel arrangements on Expedia's website and received an email receipt containing his card's expiration date.
- Simonoff alleges FACTA prohibits printing more than the last 5 digits of the card number or expiration date on receipts.
- FACTA differentiates between electronically printed receipts and receipts recorded by handwriting or imprint, limiting applicability to electronically printed receipts.
- Expedia contractually consenting to forum in King County, Washington; Simonoff initially sued in Illinois, then in Washington, with removal and remand issues.
- District court declined remand and the case proceeded; Expedia moved to dismiss based on FACTA and forum clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the forum clause limit to state courts or include federal courts? | Clause 'courts in King County' limits to state courts. | Clause includes federal courts located in King County. | Clause includes both state and federal courts in King County. |
| Does FACTA cover emails/screen displays as electronically printed receipts? | Email receipts displaying expiration date violate FACTA. | FACTA covers only receipts printed on tangible medium at point of sale. | FACTA does not cover email receipts or on-screen displays. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009) (forum clause language 'courts of' vs 'courts in' governs sovereign vs geographic scope)
- Shlahtichman v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 615 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2010) (secular interpretation of FACTA: email receipts not within 'printed' scope)
- Alliance Health Grp., LLC v. Bridging Health Options, LLC, 553 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2008) (forum selection clause interpretation among circuits)
- Global Satellite Commc'n Co. v. Starmill U.K. Ltd., 378 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004) (forum clause interpretation in circuits)
- Excell, Inc. v. Sterling Boiler & Mechanical, Inc., 106 F.3d 318 (10th Cir. 1997) (venue for federal purposes tied to counties; contrasted with Doe 1)
- Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009) (determines 'courts of' vs 'courts in' and county-based venue)