14 DAY TRIAL // After a rush of dubious iPhone related lawsuits, Apple is yet again being taken to court. This time, the lawsuit is neither frivolous nor absurd, and targets Apple's Store. The issue at hand is the amount of information in online Apple Store receipts and how it violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Apple is being sued by two Miami residents, for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the FCRA, no more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number can be printed on a receipt and the expiration date cannot be printed at all. The purpose of the FCRA is to prevent identity theft and the suit argues that Apple's practice of putting the last four digits, as well as the expiration date and other personal information on the receipt, greatly increases the chances of identity theft. The suit alleges that Apple had plenty of advance notice and should have changed their practices to comply with the law. The failure to comply is considered a "reckless" disregard of the Act, and according to the filing, all purchases made after December 4, 2006, would be part of the class, and be eligible to receive $100 to $1,000.
While the case might look very cut and dry and Apple might be seen as clearly ignoring the law, things are not that simple. According to the FCRA, the rules about the last digits and expiration date apply to "any cash register or other machine or device that electronically prints receipts for credit card or debit card transactions..." As Apple does not actually print a receipt, instead generating it electronically, it does not exactly violate the FCRA. On the other hand, considering that the spirit of this law is prevention of identity theft, Apple could be a little more discreet with the information of customers.
It is unclear exactly how this will play out, considering that Apple is not in clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If the spirit of the law is taken into account, one wonders if Apple was actually contacted about this issue before legal action was taken. If prevention of identity theft is the issue, this could have potentially happened without courts being involved.