Apple Sued Over Online Apple Store Receipts

[CanadaRAM]

and where does it say the class would get $100 - $1000 each!?

I read point 27:

"However, plaintiffs do not seek to quantify or recover actual damages in this case. either for themselves or the class"

That says to me they are seeking no damages and are therefore taking Apple to court for the hell of it to get them to sort themselves out.

They are seeking punitive damages, not actual damages, because they cannot prove any instance of losses or damages to the client from the action.

Actual damages would be along the lines of "You crashed into my car and it cost me $1,500 to fix it." - something that can be measured.

 

[iSee]

Let me say I'm not in favor of the lawsuit but I won't be returning any checks if they're sent my way. Purchased a MacBook Pro this May.

Dude, you are part of the problem. Do you really want to be the kind of guy who will sell out his principles for a few lousy bucks?

Do everyone in the world a favor and opt out of this lawsuit.

 

[koobcamuk]

As an extreme example, I ordered two flights from expedia just yesterday. I most definitely _must_ check if the names on the flights are correct, because otherwise I won't get on the flight!

You you have a brain and enter is correctly, you'll be ok.

Does all this mumbo jumbo apply to UK law as well?

 

[kpolumbo]

Checked my receipt for an iPod shuffle ordered 04/24/07. It has the last 4 digits of my CC number, type of CC, the expiration date, my full name and address, phone number and e-mail address. It says "print this page for your records" right on it, not we suggest printing this page.... etc. Hmmmmm, wonder if I'd qualify. I'd like my $1000 please!

 

[notjustjay]

So, basically, it goes like this...

Apple: Please enter your credit card details.
Me: 1234567800001234
Apple: You entered "1234567800001234". Is this correct?
Me: Aaaaah!!! Apple's displaying my confidential data! Identity theft! Privacy! Sue! SUE!!!

 

[gnasher729]

I just noticed something new. On the exhibits in the law suit, Apple recommends you print the page for your records! You can't argue that Apple prints the information to the screen, but you can argue that it doesn't count as "printing" according to the law. However, because Apple tells you on that very page that you should print a copy for your records, it is quite clear that Apple intends to offer the page as a printed receipt.

Which is perfectly in agreement with the law. Apple is _not_ allowed to print this stuff onto a sheet of paper and mail it to you. If they did that, they would be clearly in violation of the law, and on top of that ridiculously stupid. You, on the other hand, are allowed to print it (even if you were not allowed to, you would be the only person who could sue yourself). It is up to you whether you print it. If the law wanted to stop companies from suggesting to you that you should print it, then the law would say that. But it doesn't.

What a dictionary says doesn't matter. If a merchant writes your complete credit card number on a hand written receipt, do you think they would get away with this because it is not printed? Or do you think Apple could pay a fine and from then on refuse to give store customers paper receipts because the receipt is "printed" on a screen?

 

[gnasher729]

You you have a brain and enter is correctly, you'll be ok.

Good advice. Seems your chances would be low.

 

[MacAerfen]

Thank you for your order.

We're processing it now (IE you havent been billed yet). You will receive an email confirmation shortly. (In other words "You will recieve your receipt soon")

To check the status of your order, please visit
http://www.apple.com/OrderStatus

Please print this page or write down your order number (see below). It lets you track order status, get information about your software download (if applicable) and more.

If you need to talk to a customer service representative about your order,
please allow about 30 minutes for our system to process it before calling.
We appreciate your patience.

Thats right from the order confirmation screens that are in the PDF. Again no where does it say receipt. Even the first email you get from Apple does not constitute a receipt, its just a confirmation of what you ordered and that they are going to process that order. The second email is the actual receipt, which is why it contains the purchase order # which is the receipt # which makes it legal.

Surely some of you have ordered a pizza by phone. You call in, tell them what you want, they read it back to you, confirm how you will be paying for it. You haven't yet paid for it, all you have done is confirm you are ordering a specific meal and are saying you will pay for it.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple: Please enter your credit card details.
Me: 1234567800001234
Apple: You entered "1234567800001234". Is this correct?
Me: Aaaaah!!! Apple's displaying my confidential data! Identity theft! Privacy! Sue! SUE!!!

When your goods arrive, you can sue them again because they printed your name and address on the package

By then they will learn and when they lose the case you get a big cheque for an amount of XXXXXX (sorry we couldn't print this for privacy reasons) to be paid to YYYYYYY (sorry we couldn't print this for privacy reasons). Then you can sue your bank if they refuse to honour that cheque.

 

[nickelcokes]

I will say it again. The screen in question is NOT a receipt. No actual transaction has occurred at that point. It is the confirmation screen showing what you have agreed to order. You receive your receipt by email. Only the emailed receipt is accepted as proof of purchase.

Placing an order is a transaction. Whether it is a monetary transaction depends on when Apple charges your credit card, but it is a transaction regardless. You have submitted a request to purchase something, and they have received that request. You have transacted the order. The page confirms receipt of your order. It is a receipt by definition.

The law applies to receipts provided to the cardholder at the "point of sale or transaction." So the legal questions a judge must answer are:

1. When did Apple complete the credit-card charge? If it is before this confirmation, it is clearly "point of sale".
2. If Apple hadn't yet charged the credit card, does the "transaction" in the law refer only to a monetary transaction? If "transaction" can refer to the transmission and receipt of an order, this law still applies. Otherwise, this law may not apply.

 

[longofest]

Reading through the responses since my last post, I think now we're getting into exactly the kind of arguments that will be presented at trial, if it gets that far. Mainly, does what the plaintiffs offer as evidence (Apple's confirmation page) constitute a violation of the law cited?

From what I can tell, it is way too premature to just throw out the plaintiff's argument as "baseless". Likewise, it is premature to say it is a slam-dunk case and Apple is completely at fault.

In that vein, lets keep some of that rhetoric down. You may have strong feelings one way or another, but any post from here on out that states the other side is "baseless" in an inflammatory manner will deleted. Let's keep the commentary civil...

 

[CalBoy]

From the Fair Credit Reporting Act:
(1)In general. 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.
(2)Limitation. This subsection shall apply only to receipts that are electronically
printed, and shall not apply to transactions in which the sole means of recording a
credit card or debit card account number is by handwriting or by an imprint or
copy of the card.

Seems to me that if Apple was putting more digits or an expiration date on the PDF at the end, that they are guilty of not following this law. However, I'm not entirely sure that Apple does this, based on the posts of many online shoppers here. Has anyone here noticed more than five digits and/or an expiration date on their online purchases?

 

[nickelcokes]

Which is perfectly in agreement with the law. Apple is _not_ allowed to print this stuff onto a sheet of paper and mail it to you. If they did that, they would be clearly in violation of the law, and on top of that ridiculously stupid. You, on the other hand, are allowed to print it (even if you were not allowed to, you would be the only person who could sue yourself). It is up to you whether you print it. If the law wanted to stop companies from suggesting to you that you should print it, then the law would say that. But it doesn't.

Intent matters in the law. Think about killing somebody in self-defense. That Apple tells you to print the page means they intend for it to be printed. How much that matters depends on the judge assigned to the case.

What a dictionary says doesn't matter. If a merchant writes your complete credit card number on a hand written receipt, do you think they would get away with this because it is not printed? Or do you think Apple could pay a fine and from then on refuse to give store customers paper receipts because the receipt is "printed" on a screen?

First: the law exempts hand-written receipts. Hand-written receipts can print the entire credit-card number.

Second: you first tell me that displaying on a screen is not technically printing, and is therefore different. Now you are suggesting that, even though handwriting and printing are technically different, they should be treated the same. Which way do you want it? Are we using printing to refer to all display of information, or are we going to focus on technical differences?

 

[kpolumbo]

It IS a receipt. Just because your card isn't charge immediately at the time that page displays, doesn't mean it's not a receipt. Give me a break. When you are eating out at a restaurant, you get your receipt for your meal at the end of the meal after they run your CC. They run it just to get the number of your card and make sure funds are available, they don't actually charge the card at that point. You are NOT charged until later when they tip out at the end of the night and add the tip in. Then, you are charged for the entire amount including tip. You don't get a second receipt then. Your original receipt is your receipt and that is that. Same with ordering online from other companies. You get your receipt when you complete the order - that is the transaction. You're not usually billed instantaneously. It's still a receipt.

 

[PubGuy]

DISPLAYING on a screen is NOT PRINTING by any definition.
If the user chooses to PRINT the DISPLAYED information onto their printer, then it is the USER who is PRINTING the receipt, not the vendor. The vendor is providing confirmation of the transaction in the exact same medium as the user order the product in. It's bits and bytes ... power goes out, you loose the information, so it is NOT PRINTED.

This is just another example of stupid lawsuits where individuals can not accept responsibilities for their own actions. If you choose to use a public internet kiosk to place an order and input your sensitive information in public, that's your own fault. If you want privacy, go find a private terminal in a library. Better yet, go home and do it from the privacy of your own home (so no one walks in and sees your private data).

You can not legislate common sense!

 

[MacAerfen]

Until payment has been exchanged it is not a completed transaction. Online transactions take a minimum of 30 minutes to be processed. The screen you are seeing is no different than someone reading back an order (Are you going to sue the order person for reading back the credit card # to you?) and giving you an order # so you can call and make changes as needed. Just like you do not get a receipt from a store till you have handed them whatever payment they require for an item. You can order by cheque and get the same screen ordering online from Apple. Until they receive the cheque and cash it, you have not purchased anything, therefore the screen you have seen does not constitute a receipt of transaction. A receipt is confirmation of purchase. Until an actual payment has been made you have not purchased anything, simply confirmed your willingness/desire to do so.

Restaurants are handled differently because of their nature. And when you do hand them your credit card it is processed at that point. Thats why you are given a printed piece of paper that says Receipt. The difference is the type of system. Online resellers do not need point of sales systems which immediately charge the credit card because you do not immediately get the item. Retail outlets and restaurants however do, because you are going to be immediately walking out with something you purchased. They do not want the hassle of calling you when you get home with your computer and saying "your credit card was declined, please bring that computer back unopened".

 

[nickelcokes]

DISPLAYING on a screen is NOT PRINTING by any definition.
If the user chooses to PRINT the DISPLAYED information onto their printer, then it is the USER who is PRINTING the receipt, not the vendor. The vendor is providing confirmation of the transaction in the exact same medium as the user order the product in. It's bits and bytes ... power goes out, you loose the information, so it is NOT PRINTED.

You can't use permanence as the differentiating factor. If your paper receipts burn, the information is gone, too. The information was still printed. There is a long history in computing of referring to screen-based information display as "printing". This tradition is relevant to an interpretation of the law.

This is just another example of stupid lawsuits where individuals can not accept responsibilities for their own actions. If you choose to use a public internet kiosk to place an order and input your sensitive information in public, that's your own fault. If you want privacy, go find a private terminal in a library. Better yet, go home and do it from the privacy of your own home (so no one walks in and sees your private data).

You can not legislate common sense!

This isn't about individual actions. The plaintiffs never had their identities stolen. If they had been stolen, the lawsuit would have sought specific damages, instead of relying on statutory damages. This is about individuals who believe that Apple is not compliant with a law, and they are seeking correction.

The reasonableness of the law is not the issue.

 

[CalBoy]

DISPLAYING on a screen is NOT PRINTING by any definition.
If the user chooses to PRINT the DISPLAYED information onto their printer, then it is the USER who is PRINTING the receipt, not the vendor. The vendor is providing confirmation of the transaction in the exact same medium as the user order the product in. It's bits and bytes ... power goes out, you loose the information, so it is NOT PRINTED.

Again, it depends on how this law will be interpreted. I put up the text of the law above^^^. I can see how Apple providing numbers on a final transaction screen can be in violation of the law. Maybe you think it only applies to receipts that are printed, but I think that since the intent of both receipts is the same, and the danger remains the same; the law should be the same for both.

This is just another example of stupid lawsuits where individuals can not accept responsibilities for their own actions. If you choose to use a public internet kiosk to place an order and input your sensitive information in public, that's your own fault. If you want privacy, go find a private terminal in a library. Better yet, go home and do it from the privacy of your own home (so no one walks in and sees your private data).

This isn't a case of whether or not your purchase screen is public or not. Go to a retail store and buy something with a credit card. You'll notice that only the last four or five digits are there. Now, only you and the cashier see the receipt, and most cashiers don't pay attention to your credit card number. Are you telling me you want all of your credit card digits displayed on the receipt? No one else should see it, so it's ok right? See how that logic doesn't work well?

You can not legislate common sense!

Yes you can. It's common sense that a seatbelt saves lives, but it still took a law to make sure that every car had them and that everyone knows to put them on (and get a ticket if they don't).

 

[nickelcokes]

Until payment has been exchanged it is not a completed transaction. Online transactions take a minimum of 30 minutes to be processed. The screen you are seeing is no different than someone reading back an order and giving you an order # so you can call and make changes as needed. Just like you do not get a receipt from a store till you have handed them whatever payment they require for an item. You can order by cheque and get the same screen ordering online from Apple. Until they receive the cheque and cash it, you have not purchased anything, therefore the screen you have seen does not constitute a receipt of transaction.

Restaurants are handled differently because of their nature. And when you do hand them your credit card it is processed at that point. Thats why you are given a printed piece of paper that says Receipt.

There is no "receipt of transaction" because a transaction is an exchange. You don't receive a transaction, you participate in one. There are two different kind of receipts relevant to this discussion: a receipt of payment and a receipt of order. Clearly, the confirmation page is a receipt of order. They are acknowledging that they now hold your order and will process it. Whether it is a receipt of payment depends on when they charge your card. It might be that they preauthorize the funds before getting to that page, to ensure that you can pay if they have the goods to ship you.

The issue is not whether that page is a receipt, because it is. The issue is the NATURE of that receipt, and whether that document qualifies according to the specifics of the law. The answers depend on the design of Apple's online store, and the interpretation of a judge.

 

[freediverdude]

I agree with MacAerfen. There is no actual transaction until the credit card has been run through the credit system. All you've done until then is signify that you intend to purchase an item from Apple, and Apple has signified that they acknowledge your order attempt with this confirmation. Apple would not ship anything to you until the credit card has been run, and no money has exchanged hands until the credit card has been run. The actual email receipt that you get later is what they require for both return of the product and any rebate submissions. Apple does not consider the confirmation page the official receipt of the transaction, because the transaction hasn't taken place quite yet at that point. I think it will be a stretch for these plaintiffs to make a case that this screen is a receipt, and if they somehow manage to convince a judge of that, it would have industry-wide implications.

Edited to add: There is no such thing as an "order receipt". The common terminology used is "order acknowledgement" or "order confirmation". We get these all the time in the mail at our company. I'll betcha that there's already a bunch of case law out there that has determined that an order confirmation is not considered a receipt for the purposes of transaction laws.

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

Thank you for your Order!

Name: R***** A*****
Address: *** F******* Avenue Apt **
*******, NY *****

Credit card: ******card
Card Number: ******************0
Exp Date: **/**/****

Well....it seems to have all of the info I need.

 

[kpolumbo]

There is no "receipt of transaction" because a transaction is an exchange. You don't receive a transaction, you participate in one. There are two different kind of receipts relevant to this discussion: a receipt of payment and a receipt of order. Clearly, the confirmation page is a receipt of order. They are acknowledging that they now hold your order and will process it. Whether it is a receipt of payment depends on when they charge your card. It might be that they preauthorize the funds before getting to that page, to ensure that you can pay if they have the goods to ship you.

The issue is not whether that page is a receipt, because it is. The issue is the NATURE of that receipt, and whether that document qualifies according to the specifics of the law. The answers depend on the design of Apple's online store, and the interpretation of a judge.

great point! it is a receipt, whatever the nature may be. sure, funds may no have been processed at that exact time, so maybe it's not a receipt of sale. but it is a receipt in that it acknowledges what you ordered, when you ordered it, who ordered it, and how they ordered it (ie your form of payment, in which they violate the law by showing both the last 4 digits of your CC and the expiration date).

 

[koobcamuk]

Good advice. Seems your chances would be low.

I think I'll be ok thanks!

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

If Apple, Inc. is based in Cupertino, California, why is it labeled as a "foreign corporation for profit"?

Just to note, AOL posts the last 4 digits and the expiration date of your account when you check your billing status online. What's the difference?

Here's also something I noticed on the confirmation printout:

"Please print this page or write down your order number (see below). It helps you track order status, information about your software downloaded (if applicable) and more."

From the language here, they mainly suggest that you simply keep record of the order number, not really the rest of that information. So you could just as easily take their advice to simply jot down the number on a post-it note and simply do away with that confirmation, since you already know your name, and you have the important code regarding your purchase, a code that is not sensitive material in itself.

But seriously....5 numbers? With the countless permutations of digits in the rest of the string, seriously, what is one going to glean from 4-5 numbers? I could be wrong, but don't most credit card readouts basically only show the numbers passed the last dash in the ID, and don't some credit cards, like Amex have more than 4 final numbers?

 

[chr1s60]

This seems like the 4th or 5th court case against Apple I have heard about in the last week or so. At least this one might actually have something behind it instead of just some random person trying to get rich. I will have to look back at my online receipts and see about the expiration date and all that. Only thing I know is that Apple's stock has taken a beating this week. Hopefully something can bring it up soon.