It seems to me that it all hinges on how you define print, and receipt. It can easily be argued that Apple doesn't actually print the data which is sent to the customer as a result of the transaction, and that an online reciept is distinctly different from a printed reciept, for legal puroses.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sued Over Online Apple Store Receipts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It seems to me that it all hinges on how you define print, and receipt. It can easily be argued that Apple doesn't actually print the data which is sent to the customer as a result of the transaction, and that an online reciept is distinctly different from a printed reciept, for legal puroses.
And a confirmation before the transaction also probably will not be deemed a reciept. Even if the judge sides with one of the arguments with the plantiffs, there is no way he can be so lenient on both. He'll think as well they are pulling t straws a bit since they're is a lot of technicalliteis to jump. That is of course not unless there has been precedence over these definitions in which case depending on the ruling would give a good sense of certainty and weight into the ruling. Or atleast thats how I see it as a non-lawyer.
I just bought something in the Apple Store and they asked for my email.
"why?" I asked.
"So we can send you updates and your receipt." said the clerk
"No thanks" said I.
I know that when someone asks for my email addr, they are probably going to email me. Credit Card fraud and infringement are important issues, but when someone is using a wireless hand-held device to "swipe" your credit card, then asks for an email address, I think think those suing should have know better.
Or, at the least, ask why they needed their email address at the point of sale.
"why?" I asked.
"So we can send you updates and your receipt." said the clerk
"No thanks" said I.
I know that when someone asks for my email addr, they are probably going to email me. Credit Card fraud and infringement are important issues, but when someone is using a wireless hand-held device to "swipe" your credit card, then asks for an email address, I think think those suing should have know better.
Or, at the least, ask why they needed their email address at the point of sale.
this is just so ridiculous. what is the world coming to? i hate to say it - but its so american 
this is just so ridiculous. what is the world coming to? i hate to say it - but its so american
Well of course it is...the lawsuit was filed in Florida.
Other countries (esspecially Europe, Canada, and Australia) have fewer problems like this because their regulatory agencies do a better job of protecting consumers and halting useless lawsuits. This also discourages some businesses from going there, so I guess it has its trade-offs.
this is just so ridiculous. what is the world coming to? i hate to say it - but its so american
thats kind of offensive...
it's not just the united states that have these lawsuits, the problem is that we have more ability to let consumers have rights and the ability to fight back if there is a business following unethical practices, there are just a lot of people that take advantage of those rights
these lawsuits are a lot of the reason products cost so much, and luckily I live in the united states where things are still cheaper but things like this infuriate me
This is the best quote.
Unfortunately in America more than other countries people rather sue than take responsibility and make money in a honest way. Too bad.
Well thats a little bit of a stretch, maybe I will sue VMWare, just now II got my receipt with my name, my address and where I work. Really, if you have that unsecured of email, it's time to change.
about 50% of lawsuits seem legit to me. The issue is we have people that will find every little thing they can possibly sue for and lawyers that are more then happy to do this. The lawsuits are pointless. Take the class action against Microsoft a few years back. People got a check for $25 for every copy of windows that they bought, or something close to that. The lawyers in the case walked away with millions.
It seems to me that for the plaintiffs to be successful they have to prove:-
The section restricting the printing of receipts goes on to say:-
(3) Effective date. This subsection shall become effective--
(A) 3 years after the date of enactment of this subsection, with respect to any cash register or other machine or device that electronically prints receipts for credit card or debit card transactions that is in use before January 1, 2005; and
(B) 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, with respect to any cash register or other machine or device that electronically prints receipts for credit card or debit card transactions that is first put into use on or after January 1, 2005.
It appears on the face of it that the section was intended to apply to Point of Sale systems such a cash registers. It is not entirely obvious that this section would apply to an online transaction at all, depending on your definition of "other machine or device that electronically prints receipts".
- The restriction applies to online transactions; and
- The definition of receipt is broad enough to include an order confirmation; and
- Printing includes displaying information on screen.
The section restricting the printing of receipts goes on to say:-
(3) Effective date. This subsection shall become effective--
(A) 3 years after the date of enactment of this subsection, with respect to any cash register or other machine or device that electronically prints receipts for credit card or debit card transactions that is in use before January 1, 2005; and
(B) 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, with respect to any cash register or other machine or device that electronically prints receipts for credit card or debit card transactions that is first put into use on or after January 1, 2005.
It appears on the face of it that the section was intended to apply to Point of Sale systems such a cash registers. It is not entirely obvious that this section would apply to an online transaction at all, depending on your definition of "other machine or device that electronically prints receipts".
I thought her case was thrown out of court??spill a hot cup of coffee in your lap... boom instant millionaire
So you're saying you want the government to control these issues. Our inept over taxing government??? I'll stick with class action lawsuits anyday.
Frivolous. They're just trying to pick at something to sue. If they won this case, every major online retailer would have to change their transaction software, they all do something similar.
Hey, what happened to our posts? Did Macrumors delete our exchanges? And why? ???
You remember incorrectly; a jury found for the LOL and awarded her several millions of dollars. A judge reduced that and eventually, about $650K was paid, at least 30% to LOL's attorney.
See this web site:
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
It's just one of the more egregious examples of jackpot justice.
But the real question is why? Are such suits ever a good thing? Boy, that's tricky; sometimes, corporations/governments/individuals run rough shod over others, consequences be damned (does Enron come to mind?). If MacDonalds clobbers Procter and Gamble, well, they can both afford lots of attorneys to duke it out.
But if Mr.Big, Inc., cheats a bunch of little people out of $500 each, they can either become a swarm of gnats in small claims courts (good luck collecting even if you win), or they can jointly hire some attorneys on contingency (they get paid a portion of the winnings, nothing if they lose) and sue en masse.
The problem, in my estimation, is that judges allow far too many frivolous and baseless suits to proceed; the cost of defense (not to mention bad press due to inflammatory press conferences by plaintiff lawyers) frequently is greater than just paying them off. And the payoff is often pennies (or discounts on future purchases as in a Microsoft case, which are actually free or even profitable) to millions of plaintiffs, and 1/3 of that TOTAL AMOUNT in cash to the plaintiff attorneys: like a $10 discount on future purchases for a million plaintiffs is valued at $10,000,000 for purposes of calculating attorneys fees.
If judges would just cut 'em off, make truly frivolous suits loser pays, etc., and US legislatures institute some tort reforms so that penalties for even damaging behavior would be proportional to actual damages, things would improve.
EddieO
See this web site:
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
It's just one of the more egregious examples of jackpot justice.
But the real question is why? Are such suits ever a good thing? Boy, that's tricky; sometimes, corporations/governments/individuals run rough shod over others, consequences be damned (does Enron come to mind?). If MacDonalds clobbers Procter and Gamble, well, they can both afford lots of attorneys to duke it out.
But if Mr.Big, Inc., cheats a bunch of little people out of $500 each, they can either become a swarm of gnats in small claims courts (good luck collecting even if you win), or they can jointly hire some attorneys on contingency (they get paid a portion of the winnings, nothing if they lose) and sue en masse.
The problem, in my estimation, is that judges allow far too many frivolous and baseless suits to proceed; the cost of defense (not to mention bad press due to inflammatory press conferences by plaintiff lawyers) frequently is greater than just paying them off. And the payoff is often pennies (or discounts on future purchases as in a Microsoft case, which are actually free or even profitable) to millions of plaintiffs, and 1/3 of that TOTAL AMOUNT in cash to the plaintiff attorneys: like a $10 discount on future purchases for a million plaintiffs is valued at $10,000,000 for purposes of calculating attorneys fees.
If judges would just cut 'em off, make truly frivolous suits loser pays, etc., and US legislatures institute some tort reforms so that penalties for even damaging behavior would be proportional to actual damages, things would improve.
EddieO
Funny one plaintiff made three purchases on 7/30/07 the other plaintiff made one purchase on 8/1/07. Then within five days both these people know that apple is violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and they both seek out a lawyer (Mr. Leighton) who determines this is definitely grounds for a class-action lawsuit. This Clarence Darrow then writes the 11-page complaint and signs it on 8/6/07. Files the lawsuit on 8/7/07 with $350.00 fee. Now he sleeps all snug in his bed with visions of MILLIONS dancing in his head.
These are not consumers who feels that they have been wronged and want justice, no these Plaintiffs and lawyers are money-grubbing pigs.
Remember: What do you have with a lawyer who is buried up to his neck in cement.. Not enough cement.
These are not consumers who feels that they have been wronged and want justice, no these Plaintiffs and lawyers are money-grubbing pigs.
Remember: What do you have with a lawyer who is buried up to his neck in cement.. Not enough cement.
So what happens if someone comes in and sees your credit card with the number and exper date?
If I buy something in a store I don't want the address, numbers and dates showing up but when ordering on line I do. The difference is that I have total control over what I print. In a store they keep a copy that I have no control over.
Someone needs to $#**+ the lawers.
As you know, if it is determined to be "frivolous" then it will be dismissed and punitive action may be taken against the parties responsible for the frivolity.
If you are a company attempting to sue another company over a no-big-deal sort of way, you never want to sue Mr. Jobs and his fruits of lawyers. I think Apple knows how to act in the courtroom with all their battery recalls with iPod/iPhone. So, when attempting to sue Apple, think again. Don't even come to Cupertino, just hop on a connecting flight to Redmond, WA. Say high to those Windows for me.
If you are a company attempting to sue another company over a no-big-deal sort of way, you never want to sue Mr. Jobs and his fruits of lawyers. I think Apple knows how to act in the courtroom with all their battery recalls with iPod/iPhone. So, when attempting to sue Apple, think again. Don't even come to Cupertino, just hop on a connecting flight to Redmond, WA. Say high to those Windows for me.
One thing class action attorneys and Apple attorneys have in common, they understand the word "settlement".
WRONG! Check again, even the store printed copy does not have the full CC number. It has a transaction number that can be traced back to your CC number by the bank.
The whole point of the law was to keep people in the store from stealing you information. You NEVER want to let the store use a imprint machine.
The whole point of the law was to keep people in the store from stealing you information. You NEVER want to let the store use a imprint machine.
Apple could have avoided all this with a good arbitration clause along with a clause that waives the customers right to join a class action. Dell has such a clause and it has repeatedly been enforced. As a shareholder, I'm upset at Apple not having already implemented such clauses.
But I also think a lot of people here miss the point. These plaintiffs definitely have standing to sue in court. This is probably the first case in which a judge will have to interpret the word "print" in regards to the statute. It's up to them. I don't understand why people are so vehement that this is a frivolous lawsuit. Our courts are doing so much more egregious things these days with our Constitutional rights but people seem to be more outraged when their favorite retail store is sued.
But I also think a lot of people here miss the point. These plaintiffs definitely have standing to sue in court. This is probably the first case in which a judge will have to interpret the word "print" in regards to the statute. It's up to them. I don't understand why people are so vehement that this is a frivolous lawsuit. Our courts are doing so much more egregious things these days with our Constitutional rights but people seem to be more outraged when their favorite retail store is sued.
Umm... I'm pretty sure it is an american trait. Here in Canada where things are very similariay structured to America one of the biggest differences is the huge lack of lawsuits. Malpractice, patent infringement.... all these things I don't know if its just the behemoth of the US economy or more so how the law system is set up. But only America tackles so many lawsuits each year.