Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc.
201 F. Supp. 3d 1332
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- FACTA prohibits printing the card expiration date on receipts and distinguishes willful from negligent violations.
- Plaintiff Wood alleges Jimmy Choo printed her receipt with the expiration date and other personal data, creating a FACTA violation and potential class-wide damages.
- Defendant Jimmy Choo moves to dismiss for lack of standing under Article III, arguing no concrete injury absent willful, statutory damages.
- Court analyzes standing post-Spokeo, finding a concrete, particularized injury from the receipt violation, supporting jurisdiction.
- Court discusses the Clarification Act and post-2008 liability, ultimately rejecting its exclusionary effect on Wood’s claims and ruling standing exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wood have standing to seek statutory damages under FACTA? | Wood. | Choo. | Yes; Wood has injury-in-fact from the defective receipt. |
| Does FACTA create a substantive right and thus standing regardless of actual damages? | Wood. | Choo. | Court finds a concrete injury under FACTA, supporting standing. |
| Does the Clarification Act limit willful violations for post-2008 receipts? | Wood. | Choo. | Clarification Act does not bar post-2008 liability; standing preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guarisma v. Microsoft Corp., 209 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (FACTA injury occurs upon receipt printing; supports standing)
- Hammer v. Sam’s E., Inc., 754 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2014) (FACTA creates substantive rights protecting financial information)
- Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) (Willful violation analysis under FACTA; knowledge/intent relevant)