Clicky

Header graphic for print
InfoLawGroup privacy. security. technology. media. advertising. intellectual property.

Tag Archives: retailers

California Supreme Court Says Zip Codes are PII-Really. (As California Goes, So Goes the Nation? Part Two)

Posted in Data Privacy Law or Regulation, Lawsuit, Penalties and Fines, Privacy and Security Litigation, Privacy Law

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday, in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, that zip codes are “personal identification information” for purposes of California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code section 1747.08. Really.

Massachusetts’s Highest Court Delivers BJ Wholesalers (and other Retailers) a Data Breach Liability Gift

Posted in Damages, PCI

While the proverbial jury is still out concerning retailers’ sales success this 2009 holiday season, Massachusetts’s highest court (the Supreme Judicial Court or “Supreme Court” as referenced herein) delivered retailers a significant holiday gift in the form of an opinion slamming the door on some financial institutions seeking to recover reissuance costs arising out a… Continue Reading

California Court Rejects Class Action Based on Data Collection for PII Aggregation Purposes

Posted in PII, Privacy and Security Litigation

On Friday, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, certified for publication its October 8 opinion in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, the most recent in a string of decisions regarding California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08. On first glance, Pineda appears uneventful. The Court merely reiterated its December 2008 holding in Party City v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.4th 497 (2008), that zip codes are not personal identification information for purposes of the Act, right? Not so fast. In fact, the Pineda court added a couple of new wrinkles that are worth a second look. First, the court reaffirmed its Party City holding even though Pineda specifically alleged that Williams-Sonoma collected the zip code for the purpose of using it and the customer’s name to obtain even MORE personal identification information, the customer’s address, through the use of a “reverse search” database. Second, the court held that a retailer’s use of a legally obtained zip code to acquire, view, print, distribute or use an address that is otherwise publicly available does not amount to an offensive intrusion of a consumer’s privacy under California law.