Apple Sued Over Online Apple Store Receipts

[gnasher729]

Could you please re-update that update?

From the pdf document:

"12. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the class, statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees, all of which are expressly made available pursuant to 15 U.S.C §1681 et. seq. "

 

[nickelcokes]

The update to this article is now misinformed. The plaintiffs ARE asking for monetary damages. longofest should have confidence in his own ability to read legal documents, and people who can't read legal documents should stop pretending that they can!

 

[gnasher729]

This isn't a frivolous law suit. If what the plaintiffs allege is true, then Apple violated the law, and they should be subject to the penalties. What if your identity is stolen as a result of Apple's violation of the law? It might not have happened yet, but it can.

This is a frivolous lawsuit. Apple doesn't print these receipts. Apple displays a webpage, containing information that you entered just ten seconds earlier, and tells you that you can print this webpage and keep it for your records if you choose to do so. If you don't want them printed, there is a very simple solution: Don't print them!

 

[killerrobot]

The update to this article is now misinformed. The plaintiffs ARE asking for monetary damages. Arn should have confidence in his own ability to read legal documents, and people who can't read legal documents should stop pretending that they can!

I think anyone that can read, can read legal documents.

The problem is that lawyers and judges are the ones that are suppose to "interpret" them.

 

[longofest]

If Apple was seriously sending out receipts with all that info on it they should be smacked with an idiocy lawsuit. Not like identity theft just showed up in the world this last year.

I'm glad the plaintiffs aren't seeking damages (from what people have posted above--haven't read that far into the report yet) and it seems like they are just trying to make Apple aware of their mistakes -- which is a good thing IMO.

I agree. We don't report on most of the lawsuits that come before Apple here at MacRumors, but I noticed that this one appeared to have some solid legal grounds, so it was worth posting. Of course, I don't know whether it will stand or not in court, but at least it isn't one of the millions of "you sold me an iPod/iPhone with a battery that wears out" or "you stole my technology". Those are just either stupid complaints not worth posting, or impossible to judge the merits of and whether its a frivolous lawsuit or something substantial.

 

[eenu]

The update to this article is now misinformed. The plaintiffs ARE asking for monetary damages. Arn should have confidence in his own ability to read legal documents, and people who can't read legal documents should stop pretending that they can!

Hey it wasn't me that updated it! Nor did i ask for it to be updated i only claimed that i thought arn was incorrect so get of your high horse and learn manners, and as killerrobot says its lawyers meant to interpret them. I'm a Doctor of Engineering not a lawyer!

 

[longofest]

Could you please re-update that update?

From the pdf document:

"12. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the class, statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees, all of which are expressly made available pursuant to 15 U.S.C §1681 et. seq. "

See article 27.

And I know you didn't say it, but for god's sakes people... Arn didn't post this story. I did! Don't blame the infalable Arn!

 

[Project]

Checked my purchases going back to 2004 and I just get the last 4 digits and card type - no expiry date.

 

[gnasher729]

And even though I love Apple they are obviously at fault here. It might have been a small oversight, a mistake by a new employee or whatever, but in the end it's real. The evidence they supply clearly shows that Apple did indeed violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It's nit picky and someone probably sat there looking for something to sue for but they found it since this definitely does carry legal merit.

Please explain to us what exactly Apple is doing that they shouldn't. The FCRA says "You shall not print..." and Apple _doesn't_ print.

 

[jellomizer]

AAPL is collapsing.

Checking the stock it looks more like a correction. I expect it will settle back down around the high 90's or low 100's. The iPhone created a lot of extra hype. Hype makes people overestimate the company, leading to a lot of investment then when the real numbers come out poeple are disapointed and sell out.

 

[longofest]

This is a frivolous lawsuit. Apple doesn't print these receipts. Apple displays a webpage, containing information that you entered just ten seconds earlier, and tells you that you can print this webpage and keep it for your records if you choose to do so. If you don't want them printed, there is a very simple solution: Don't print them!

I think your frustration is misplaced. The lawsuit isn't frivilous, because it appears to have a pretty valid argument based on the law cited. It seems what you really have issue with is the law itself.

 

[eenu]

As Longofest says it really isn't frivolous. These guys really do have a case, it will be interesting to see how this one pans out. It is of course a shame they couldn't have done this without a lawsuit but hey....

 

[nickelcokes]

I think anyone that can read, can read legal documents.

The problem is that lawyers and judges are the ones that are suppose to "interpret" them.

Hey it wasn't me that updated it! Nor did i ask for it to be updated i only claimed that i thought arn was incorrect so get of your high horse and learn manners, and as killerrobot says its lawyers meant to interpret them. I'm a Doctor of Engineering not a lawyer!

Obviously people can't read these documents. It is clearly stated that the plaintiffs seek punitive damages from Apple. Lawyers don't interpret the law, they argue it. Judges interpret the law. But there is no interpretation of the law in this document. This is a claim. The judge will decide if the claim is valid. But it is very clear that they are asking for money.

 

[nickelcokes]

See article 27.

And I know you didn't say it, but for god's sakes people... Arn didn't post this story. I did! Don't blame the infalable Arn!

See the "WHEREFORE" section following Paragraph 30. This is where they are actually stating their requests. Particularly, see items C, D, E, H.

 

[longofest]

Article 27

I'm really interested in article 27 of the lawsuit. Every other article, including 30 which seems to outline all of the damages seeked, asks for actual damages to be awarded. But Article 27 states that damages are not being seeked.

This is a beautiful example of how complexity of legal documents, and how tricky they can be to read. Any lawyers in the house want to clarify how article 27 relates to the rest of the suit?

 

[aLoC]

Maybe they didn't follow the letter of the law, but realistically 5 digits + the expiry is almost as useless as 5 digits alone. You really need the whole number to make a nuisance of yourself.

 

[amoda]

Please explain to us what exactly Apple is doing that they shouldn't. The FCRA says "You shall not print..." and Apple _doesn't_ print.

FCRA: Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that accepts
credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.

If you open the PDF of the claim and scroll all the way down to the evidence you can see, in several receipts, that the expiration date is indeed provided. That alone violates the FCRA since it doesn't need a pre-req, it's a simple "it shouldn't be there". I'm not a lawyer or anything, I'm just reading between the FCRA and the lawsuit.

So according to what I've read the FCRA says "You shall not print..." and Apple does anyways.

 

[eenu]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+15USC1681n

According to this $100 - $1000 is for ACTUAL damages.

Though section two mentions punitive damages

EDIT: Though i think it highly highly unlikely they will receive punitive damages as they are only issued where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.

 

[nickelcokes]

I'm really interested in article 27 of the lawsuit. Every other article, including 30 which seems to outline all of the damages seeked, asks for actual damages to be awarded. But Article 27 states that damages are not being seeked.

This is a beautiful example of how complexity of legal documents, and how tricky they can be to read. Any lawyers in the house want to clarify how article 27 relates to the rest of the suit?

I have a previous post about this. ACTUAL damages are different than PUNITIVE or STATUTORY damages. Punitive damages are designed to PUNISH Apple, giving them a strong incentive to become compliant with the law. These are assessed whether or not anybody was actually hurt. ACTUAL damages occur if somebody is hurt by their actions. In this case, they claim that people were harmed (by increasing the risk of identity theft), but they can't quantify that, so they won't ask for direct compensation. They will ask for the STATUTORY damages provided in the law, which award the $100 to $1000 without demanding that people enumerate the costs incurred as a result of Apple's violations. However, if somebody can quantify their damages (for instance, by proving that his credit card number was stolen from the receipt, and documenting the costs to fix the action), he can seek recovery of those costs from Apple independently.

 

[nickelcokes]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+15USC1681n

According to this $100 - $1000 is for ACTUAL damages.

Though section two mentions punitive damages

EDIT: Though i think it highly highly unlikely they will receive punitive damages as they are only issued where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.

Read more closely (emphasis added):

(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or

If you can show the exact costs you incurred as a result of noncompliance of this law, you can ask for that much in return. If you can't, or don't want to figure the costs, you can ask for the blanket damages. These are actually called "Statutory damages" in the law suit, see WHEREFORE, Paragraph C.

 

[eenu]

so in the bigger scheme of things.... how likely is it that all Apple Online customers in 2007 are going to receive money?

 

[nickelcokes]

Please explain to us what exactly Apple is doing that they shouldn't. The FCRA says "You shall not print..." and Apple _doesn't_ print.

Apple does print... on the screen. Making a PDF of this receipt is just making a COPY of what Apple prints.

FCRA: Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that accepts
credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.

If you open the PDF of the claim and scroll all the way down to the evidence you can see, in several receipts, that the expiration date is indeed provided. That alone violates the FCRA since it doesn't need a pre-req, it's a simple "it shouldn't be there". I'm not a lawyer or anything, I'm just reading between the FCRA and the lawsuit.

So according to what I've read the FCRA says "You shall not print..." and Apple does anyways.

You've got it right.

 

[gnasher729]

FCRA: Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that accepts
credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.

If you open the PDF of the claim and scroll all the way down to the evidence you can see, in several receipts, that the expiration date is indeed provided. That alone violates the FCRA since it doesn't need a pre-req, it's a simple "it shouldn't be there". I'm not a lawyer or anything, I'm just reading between the FCRA and the lawsuit.

Bla bla bla completely missing the point.

So according to what I've read the FCRA says "You shall not print..." and Apple does anyways.

They claim that Apple prints this stuff. But Apple doesn't. It appears on a customers screen, and the customer is free to print it or not. The printed receipts that they show in the lawsuit were not printed by Apple. They were printed by the customers who are starting the lawsuit.

 

[Maui]

Any lawyers in the house want to clarify how article 27 relates to the rest of the suit?

I already have. I litigate exactly these types of suits (on the defense side).

They are seeking 2 types of damages: statutory and punitive (plus costs of suit, etc, and interest, which they will never get since this is not a liquidated sum).

Here's why statutory damages are in play here. Proving "actual" damages in the case of a violation of this statute could be extremely difficult. Imagine someone gives out my credit card number, but no one ever uses it to make fraudulent charges. I haven't been "actually" damaged, but as a matter of public policy, we still want to deter that conduct. So, we put a statutory amount in the statute. If you prove a violation of the statute, you get the statutory amount, whether you can prove actual damages or not. Think of it as a civil penalty.

Eenu: Though i think it highly highly unlikely they will receive punitive damages as they are only issued where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy.

This is only one reason punitives could be awarded. Another is to punish a wrongdoer. I doubt that is in play here, though.

 

[nickelcokes]

so in the bigger scheme of things.... how likely is it that all Apple Online customers in 2007 are going to receive money?

Well, it was pointed out elsewhere that Apple will probably settle for a much smaller amount. I wouldn't be surprised if you get a free song on iTunes or something stupid like that. Or you might get a coupon for some amount off your next store purchase. I saw something like that with a Blockbuster Video suit.