3rd Circuit Finds No Concrete Injury in J. Crew Credit Card Suit
Applying "Spokeo," the Court of Appeals said a plaintiff whose suit accused J. Crew of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 suffered no concrete injury and therefore lacked standing to seek damages.
March 08, 2019 at 03:40 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a suit against retailer J. Crew for allegedly printing more than five digits of a customer's credit card number on a cash register receipt.
Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, the Third Circuit said a plaintiff whose suit accused J. Crew of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 suffered no concrete injury and therefore lacked standing to seek damages.
The plaintiff, Ahmed Kamal, made purchases at three J. Crew stores and was issued receipts that listed the first six and the last four digits of his credit card number. He alleged two concrete harms: the printing of the prohibited information itself and the increased risk of identity theft that he faced as a result of such printing.
In 2017, New Jersey U.S. District Judge William Martini dismissed the suit, finding no sufficiently concrete injury because no third parties ever got access to Kamal's credit card number and he suffered no financial loss. Kamal appealed.
The Third Circuit panel, composed of Judges Michael Chagares, Anthony Scirica and Marjorie Rendell, noted Spokeo's directive to evaluate the concreteness of an intangible harm by considering whether the harm has a “close relationship” to a harm that has been traditionally regarded as providing a basis for a common-law action. Kamal claimed his injury is analogous to common-law privacy torts and an action for breach of confidence.
But the Third Circuit judges disagreed, finding Kamal's alleged injury was different from the harms providing a basis for those common-law actions. Scirica, writing for the court, said the most analogous tort to the plaintiff's circumstances is unreasonable publicity, which protects against unauthorized disclosures of information. Similarly, a breach of confidence involves unprivileged disclosure to a third party of nonpublic information that a defendant learned within a confidential relationship.
“Kamal's injury does not have the requisite 'close relationship' with these actions because he does not allege disclosure of his information to a third party,” Scirica wrote for the court.
FACTA suits can inflict serious damage. In 2017, sandwich chain Subway agreed to a $31 million settlement of a suit over failure to conceal customers' credit card numbers in the Southern District of Florida. But Spokeo has helped to defeat other FACTA suits against appliance retailer P.C. Richard and a parking garage operator.
The Second, Seventh and Ninth circuits have determined that plaintiffs lacked standing due to lack of a concrete injury in FACTA suits based on circumstances similar to the J. Crew case, the court of appeals said. But the Eleventh Circuit found in 2018 that the same type of FACTA violation created a concrete injury. In that case, the Court of Appeals affirmed a $6.3 million class action settlement against Godiva Chocolatier after concluding that the circumstances were similar to a common-law breach-of-confidence action. The Third Circuit said a breach-of-confidence action was not analogous without disclosure of card numbers to a third party.
The Eleventh Circuit also held that the plaintiff in the Godiva case alleged another concrete injury of shouldering the cost of safely keeping or destroying the receipt to avoid having someone find the credit card numbers printed on it. The Third Circuit said it need not discuss how such an allegation might change the standing analysis.
The trial court dismissed the Kamal case with prejudice, but the appeals court said that action was improper because the plaintiff lacked standing. The Third Circuit vacated that order and remanded the case to the trial court for dismissal without prejudice.
New York attorney Marvin Frank argued for Kamal. Frank's associate, Asher Hawkins, said the firm would not comment on the ruling.
J. Crew was represented by Keara Gordon of DLA Piper in New York, who did not return a call about the ruling.
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
© 2025 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 AllAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute readDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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