In the past four months, the California Supreme Court and California court of appeal have issued decisions that dramatically clarified the scope of class action privacy litigation. On Feb. 10, the Supreme Court issued Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, 11 C.D.O.S. 1889, stating that a retailer’s request and recording of a credit cardholder’s ZIP code violates the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, abrogating a appeal court decision (Party City v. Superior Court, 08 C.D.O.S. 15349 issued two years ago. This decision resulted in a wave of new consumer class actions based on alleged violations of the act.
Three months later, the court of appeal issued two decisions within a day of each other that remarkably limited consumer claims based on a breach of privacy. (Archer v. United Rentals, 11 C.D.O.S. 5997 and Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, 11 C.D.O.S. 6143) Among other things, the court of appeal limited the privacy protections afforded by the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act to only those credit cards “issued” for personal purposes, thereby clarifying an issue that had been left open in Pineda.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
