Massachusetts federal court says that ZIP code is personal information under credit card statute. However, because plaintiff failed to allege cognizable injury, the lawsuit is dismissed.
Original Title
Tyler v. Michaels Stores, 11-10920-WGY (D.mass.; Jan 6, 2012)
Massachusetts federal court says that ZIP code is personal information under credit card statute. However, because plaintiff failed to allege cognizable injury, the lawsuit is dismissed.
Massachusetts federal court says that ZIP code is personal information under credit card statute. However, because plaintiff failed to allege cognizable injury, the lawsuit is dismissed.
Case 1:11-cv-10920-WGY Document 21 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MELISSA TYLER on behalf of
herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-10920-wey
MICHAELS STORES, INC.
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, D.J. January 6, 2012
I. INTRODUCTION
[Flor all its faults, the civil justice system remains a
remarkable achievement. It is there that an individual
who is injured, neither wealthy nor well connected, can
hail a powerful adversary into court on equal footing and
ask the court to hold it accountable for its wrongful
conduct.
Only in an American courtroom — not in legislative
chambers or executive suites — can an individual seek
full redress, standing at the bar on an equal basis with
a powerful and influential adversary. The political and
economic advantages that one might enjoy in other arenas
dissolve in the courtroom. That [is] something that we
should not ever look to give up.
Robert S. Peck, Emerging Civil Justice Issues (Dec. 5, 2010), in
7. J.L. Econ. & Polty 195, 195-96 (2010).
Here, a dispute between a determined shopper and a
multistate retail chain gives rise to a case of first impression.Case 1:11-cv-10920-WGY Document 21 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 31
The issue is one of construction of a Massachusetts statute, a
matter of law. Melissa Tyler (“Tyler”) brings this suit against
Michaels Stores, Inc. ("Michaels") for violation of Massachusetts
General Laws, chapter 93, section 105(a) (the “Act” or “Section
105 (a) Tyler has sued on behalf of herself and a putative
class, claiming that Michaels illegally requested customers’ ZIP
codes when processing their credit card transactions in violation
of the Act. She brings a three count complaint alleging that the
violation of the Act amounted to a per se violation of
Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 93A, section 9, caused unjust
enrichment, and entitles Tyler to declaratory relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. S$ 2201-2202. Michaels has filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety, which motion is presently before
this Court. Michaels argues that Tyler has failed to plead a
violation of the Act, allege a legally cognizable injury, and
assert facts sufficient to establish unjust enrichment or to
warrant declaratory relief. Michaels denies that customers’ ZIP
codes constitute “personal identification information” or that
the retailers’s electric credit card terminal creates a “credit
card transaction form” as those phrases are used in the Act.
A. Procedural Posture
Tyler filed a putative class action on May 23, 2011 against
Michaels. Class Action Compl. (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1Case 1:11-cv-10920-WGY Document 21 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 31
Subsequently, on duly 22, 2011, Michaels filed the present motion
to dismiss. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss (“Michaels’ Mot.”), ECF No. 9
On September 2, 2011, Tyler filed her memorandum in opposition to
Michaels’ motion to dismiss. Mem. L. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Dismiss
(Tyler's Mem."), ECF No. 15. On September 16, 2011, Michaels
filed its reply memorandum. Reply Supp. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF
No. 17. On September 30, 2011, Tyler filed her sur-reply. sur-
Reply Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Compl. ("Sur-Reply”), ECF No. 18
This Court heard oral arguments on the motion on October 20,
2011. Michaels’ motion to dismiss is presently before this
court.
B. Factual Allegations
On several occasions during the past year, Tyler made credit
card purchases at Michaels in Everett, Massachusetts, at which
she was asked to provide her ZIP code number. Compl. 7 6. tyler
provided the information, under the mistaken impression that she
was required to do so to complete the transaction. Id. 11 6, 20.
Tyler alleges that Michaels’ employees entered her and other
customers’ ZIP codes on the computerized check-out register used
to process the point-of-sale transaction. Id. | 20. The cash
register created an electronic “form” containing the credit card
number, the card holder's name, and ZIP code. Id. 41 7, 20
The credit card issuer did not require Michaels to request
its customers’ ZIP codes to process their transactions, id. 9 1,