On June 20, 2013, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action which alleged that Chevron violated California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (“Song-Beverly”) by requiring California customers to enter ZIP codes in pay-at-the-pump gas station transactions in locations with a high risk of fraud. Flores
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
Massachusetts Federal Judge Says ZIP Code is Definitely Maybe “Personal Identification Information” . . . Implores Parties to Seek State Court Certification.
In an extension of the spate of litigation surrounding California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and other laws like it, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Civ. No. 11-10920-WGY (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2012), followed the California Supreme Court’s lead in ruling that ZIP codes are “personal identification information” within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 93, § 105(a). The court nonetheless dismissed the plaintiff’s putative class action because she failed to allege any legally cognizable harm as a result of Michaels’ collection of her ZIP code in connection with a credit card transaction. Retailers who were unhappy with the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Pineda probably will not be any more pleased with the court’s ZIP code reasoning here. But the result? You bet!
…
Another Court Affirms Narrowed Interpretation of Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
On June 26, 2008, in Absher v. Autozone, Inc. et al. (2008), the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District, confirmed that California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08 (hereinafter, the “Act”) does not apply to a refund for the return of merchandise purchased by credit card.
No Shopping Spree for Plaintiffs Under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
On May 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal narrowed the scope of claims available under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08, ruling that the statute is subject to the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340 and does not apply to merchandise returns.
…