Six Flags Sued Over Failure to Protect Patrons' Credit Card Numbers
Amusement park operator Six Flags Entertainment faces a potential class action claiming it failed to comply with a 2003 federal law requiring truncation of credit card numbers on cash register receipts.
January 05, 2018 at 02:45 PM
4 minute read
Six Flags Great Adventure. Photo: PitK/Shutterstock.com
Amusement park operator Six Flags Entertainment faces a potential class action claiming it failed to comply with a 2003 federal law requiring truncation of credit card numbers on cash register receipts.
Six Flags–which is headquartered in Grand Prairie, Texas–was accused in the suit of committing thousands of violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act's requirement that cash register receipts print no more than five digits of a customer's credit card number. The sole named plaintiff in the case, Yaakov Katz, says he was issued a receipt at the company's Six Flags Great Adventure park in New Jersey with 10 digits of his American Express card number. FACTA provides statutory damages of up to $1,000 per violation, and the suit seeks attorney fees, costs and punitive damages.
Six Flags had ample warning of the act's requirement to truncate credit card numbers, as well as its requirement not to show card expiration numbers on receipts, which went into effect in 2006, according to the suit by Ryan Gentile of Gus Farinella's office in Floral Park, New York. The complaint cites announcements and notices about the truncation requirement from the Federal Trade Commission, credit card processors, cash register manufacturers, and the companies that issue Visa, MasterCard and Discover cards.
“Despite defendants' long-standing actual knowledge of FACTA's requirements, defendants operated for a substantial period of time, possibly since FACTA first went into effect, in reckless, i.e. willful, disregard of FACTA's requirements and continue to use cash registers or other point of sale machines or devices that printed receipts in violation the truncation requirement after 2006,” the suit claims.
The suit names Six Flags Entertainment and Six Flags Great Adventure as defendants. It was brought on behalf of a nationwide class of persons who used a debit or credit card at any Six Flags location and were given an electronically printed receipt showing more than the last five digits of their card number after Nov. 5, 2012. Six Flags has 17 amusement park and water park locations in the United States.
The suit was filed in state Superior Court in Ocean County on Nov. 30 and removed to federal court on Jan. 4. Plaintiffs lawyer Gentile declined to comment on the case. Andrea D'Ambra of Norton Rose Fulbright in New York, who filed the removal notice for Six Flags, also declined to comment on the case, as did Six Flags spokeswoman Sandra Daniels.
A similar suit in the District of New Jersey, Kamal v. J. Crew Group, was dismissed in October 2016 based on a finding that the lack of actual damages fails to satisfy the requirement of a “concrete” injury under the U.S. Supreme Court case Spokeo v . Robins.
In Kamal, U.S. District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey dismissed a class suit against retailer J.Crew upon finding that without evidence of fraudulent credit card use, a customer whose account number is printed on a store receipt has not suffered sufficient harm to confer Article III standing,
A similar suit against Donna Karan International in the Southern District of New York was dismissed for the same reason in May 2017.
But in 2012 another amusement park company, Palace Entertainment, gave class members free amusement park tickets to settle a suit in the Western District of Pennsylvania over violations of PASPA. And in another Western District of Pennsylvania case over failure to redact parts of credit card numbers, Pittsburgh sandwich shop Primanti gave thousands of customers a free sandwich each to settle its case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Appellate Division Holds 'Clickwrap' Arbitration Provision Enforceable
5 minute readAppellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readThe Real Estate Consumer Protection Enhancement Act Brings Industry Change
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250