JUNE 11, 2014
CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LITIGATION UPDATE
Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor of Redbox Under Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act
Consumer class actions under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act have been shaped by significant case
law developments over the last few years. Friday’s Ninth Circuit decision in Sinibaldi v. Redbox is a decisive
victory for retailers of rented goods which will allow them wide latitude to collect personal information, such as
zip codes, when using credit cards as a form of security.
The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act broadly prohibits the collection of personally identifying information (e.g., a
cardholder’s address or phone number) during credit card transactions except in limited circumstances. Several
new class action lawsuits for alleged violations of the law are filed every year in California. There are at least two
reasons for this steady stream of class actions. First, the law does not receive as much public attention as some
other California consumer protection laws. Second, as a remedial consumer protection statute, courts liberally
construe the statute which has led to judicial decisions that broaden the scope and reach of the statute. In Florez
v. Linens ‘N Things, the court held that the Act prohibited the collection of personally identifying information
before a customer’s form of payment was even known because some customers then used a credit card for
purchases. In Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, the court held that zip codes alone (without accompanying street
address information) constituted personally identifiable information. These decisions spawned hundreds of
copycat lawsuits.
The law is not limitless, however, and from time to time decisions have been issued that draw constraints around
the possible scope of liability. In Absher v. Autozone, the court held that return transactions are not “credit card
transactions” under the Act even if the purchase at issue was originally made with a credit card. In Apple v.
Superior Court, the court held that online sales of electronic content are exempt under the law’s “fraud
prevention” exception. These decisions squelched identical pending and threatened litigation.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in favor of Redbox will inure to the benefit of retailers beyond the self-service kiosk
market space. Plaintiff challenged Redbox’s collection of zip codes at its kiosks, for which credit cards are the
only accepted form of payment. As described in the court’s opinion, Redbox charges customers for a one-day
rental at the time a video or gaming DVD is selected and thereafter charges customers for additional rental days
until the DVD is returned or a maximum fee (roughly approximating the cost of the DVD) is reached. At issue
was the exception under the Act for credit cards “being used as a deposit to secure payment in the event of
default, loss, damage or other similar occurrence.”
Plaintiff argued that the “deposit” exception under the Act should be limited to transactions in which a fee is
obtained in advance and then refunded when specified conditions are met (e.g., if the DVD is returned in one
Sidley Austin provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a
lawyer-client relationship. Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, 212.839.5300; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, 312.853.7000; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202.736.8000.
CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LITIGATION UPDATE
Page 2
day). The dissent agreed that the Act’s exceptions should be narrowly construed and would have found that
Redbox’s practice amounted to a series of subsequent rentals, culminating in a purchase when the maximum fee
is reached, and is not covered by the exception related to default, loss or damage.
The majority of the court held that these interpretations were inconsistent with the plain language of the statute
and would render the exception a nullity. The court held that a credit card could provide security in multiple
ways. Without limitation, the court noted that a credit card could provide security, and thus fall squarely within
the Act’s exception, if an amount is drawn in advance, if a pre-authorization is issued without funds being
drawn, if a hold is put on a part of the credit limit, or if the credit card information is simply held on file.
The court found no logical reason to draw the fine distinctions advocated by plaintiff and in the dissent. The
court’s decision could have broad application in other rental contexts, including for cars, hotel rooms, furniture,
or recreational equipment.
If you have any questions regarding this update, please contact:
Amy P. Lally
Partner
[email protected]
+1.213.896.6642
Catherine M. Valerio Barrad
Partner
[email protected]
+1.213.896.6688
Sidley Consumer Products and Services Litigation Practice
Sidley has extensive experience defending many types of consumer class actions and non-class representative actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country, at trial and on appeal. Our consumer product and services clients draw on Sidley’s deep
experience in litigation areas such as products liability, complex commercial, intellectual property, privacy law, employment, real
estate, and antitrust. Our lawyers have broad experience defending claims against all businesses in the chain of commerce for
consumer products including suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and consumer services such as call centers, warranty
providers, and e-commerce sites.
Sidley Privacy, Data Security & Information Law Practice
We offer clients an inter-disciplinary, international group of lawyers focusing on the complex national and international issues of
data protection and cyber law. The group includes lawyers experienced in regulatory compliance, litigation, financial institutions,
healthcare, EU regulation, IT licensing, marketing counsel, intellectual property and criminal issues. Sidley provides services in the
following areas:
•
Privacy and Consumer Protection Litigation, Enforcement and Regulatory Compliance
•
Data Breach, Incident Response and Cybersecurity Advice, Response and Litigation
•
Global Data Protection, International Data Transfer Solutions and Cross-Border Issues
•
Corporate Data Protection, Compliance Programs and Information Governance Assessments
•
FTC and State Attorney General Investigations of Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices
•
Cloud Computing, Social Media, Online Advertising, Internet of Things, E-Commerce and Internet Issues
•
EU, China, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and other International Data Protection and Compliance Counseling
•
Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Financial Privacy
•
HIPAA and Healthcare Privacy
•
Communications Law and Data Protection
•
Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring
•
Website Policies, Online Trademarks and Domain Name Protection
•
Records Retention, Electronic Discovery and Defensible Deletion
•
Governmental Access and National Security
CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LITIGATION UPDATE
Page 3
To receive future copies of this and other Sidley updates via email, please sign up at www.sidley.com/subscribe
BEIJING ∙ BOSTON ∙ BRUSSELS ∙ CHICAGO ∙ DALLAS ∙ FRANKFURT ∙ GENEVA ∙ HONG KONG ∙ HOUSTON ∙ LONDON ∙ LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK ∙ PALO ALTO ∙ SAN FRANCISCO ∙ SHANGHAI ∙ SINGAPORE ∙ SYDNEY ∙ TOKYO ∙ WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sidley Austin refers to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at www.sidley.com/disclaimer.
www.sidley.com