HireCentrix News - News Articles

Last week, in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 446921, — Cal. 4th — (Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) ("Pineda"), the California Supreme Court held that "a ZIP code constitutes ‘personal identification information'" as that phrase is used in California Civil Code section 1747.08 ("Section 1747.08"), and as such, "requesting and recording a [credit] cardholder's ZIP code" is prohibited by Section 1747.08 if it is requested as part of a credit card transaction.¹

Background on Section 1747.08

Section 1747.08 is part of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 as amended. With certain exceptions and exclusions, Section 1747.08 prohibits businesses from requesting or requiring customers who use credit cards as tender to provide personal identification information, and then recording such information.² The statute also bans the use of forms that facilitate the obtaining of such information.³ The statute defines "personal identification information" as "information concerning the cardholder, other than information set forth on the credit card, and including, but not limited to, the cardholder's address and telephone number."⁴ The statute provides for a civil penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each subsequent violation. Among other exceptions, the statute does not apply to instances where "personal identification information is required for a special purpose incidental but related to the individual credit card transaction, including, but not limited to, information relating to shipping, delivery, servicing, or installation of the purchased merchandise, or for special orders."⁵

California Appellate Court decisions regarding whether ZIP codes constitute personal identification information before Pineda

Prior to Pineda, two California appellate decisions had addressed the issue of whether ZIP codes constitute personal identification information under Section 1747.08. In Party City Corp. v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 4th 497 (2008), the appellate court held that "[a] five-digit ZIP code is not, as a matter of law, that kind of personalized or individual identification information" that the statute was intended to protect.⁶ The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review of the decision in Party City. A little under a year later, in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 714 (2009), review granted Feb. 10, 2010, S178241, the same appellate court re-affirmed its earlier decision in Party City. In Pineda, the plaintiff had alleged: (1) she went to the cashier at defendant's store to pay for an item with her credit card; (2) the cashier asked plaintiff for her ZIP code and, believing she was required to provide the requested information to complete the transaction, plaintiff provided it; (3) the cashier entered plaintiff's ZIP code into the electronic cash register and then completed the transaction; (4) at the end of the transaction, defendant had plaintiff's credit card number, name, and ZIP code recorded in its database; (5) defendant matched plaintiff's name and ZIP code with plaintiff's previously undisclosed address, giving defendant the information, which it now maintains in its own database; and (6) defendant uses its database to market products to customers and may also sell the information it has compiled to other businesses.⁷

The California Supreme Court's decision in Pineda

Although it denied the petition for review of Party City, the California Supreme Court

Read More

##

Comments: