This is a question for another day. Defendant’s raising of the question here does it no good, for plaintiff has adequately pled that defendant failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g), and that its failure was reckless or willful. VIII.

Indeed, it shows that Target was aware of FACTA and its requirements and yet failed to comply. Case: 1:10-cv-05598 Document #: 47 Filed: 08/02/11 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:455 15 Safeco and Shlahtichman clearly mandate that plain language of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1) must be followed and the FTC’s guidance in absence of a Court of Appeals ruling is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the section of the FCRA. Safeco, 551 U.S. at 69-70.

All of this is a question for another day, when the amount of damages is considered. Defendant’s raising of the question here does it no good, for plaintiff has adequately pled that defendant failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g), and that its failure was reckless or willful. VIII.

The SAC Sufficiently Alleges an Alternative Claim for Negligent Violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g) As set forth above, the SAC sufficiently plead a willful violation of § 1681c(g) entitling Plaintiff to recover statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. §1681n. The SAC also pleads, alternatively, that Defendant negligently violated § 1681c(g), which would entitle Plaintiff to recover actual damages as that term is defined by the FCRA.

As discussed above, any allegedly inaccurate information will be removed from Plaintiff’s credit report pursuant to the FCRA long before his release from federal prison. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681c. As such, Plaintiff fails to allege injury in fact and will be unable to do so at any time in the future. Consequently, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety without leave to amend for lack of Article III standing.

See 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g); see Legg, 14- cv-61798, Dkt. 64 at p. 10; see also Rogers, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103599 at *8 (“one common legal issue predominates in this case — whether the receipts printed by Defendant violate 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g).”) Likewise, the question of whether Body Shop acted willfully directly impacts each class members’ right to relief because the complaint only seeks statutory and punitive damages, and that relief is only available if Body Shop acted willfully.

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT FACTA prohibits those who “accept” credit or debit cards from “printing” a non-truncated receipt “provided” to the cardholder “at the point of the sale or transaction.” Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g) provides: Case 2:16-cv-04994-GW-PLA Document 36 Filed 10/17/16 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT KYDIA, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1134963.2 CAROTHERS DiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP … 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.

On or after December 4, 2006, Tumi printed the expiration date and/or printed more than the last five digits of Class Members’ credit card or debit card numbers on the receipts provided to the Class Members at the point of a sale or transaction between Tumi and the Class Members. Each and every such receipt violated 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g), irrespective of when the Cash Register was put into use. (Complaint at ¶ 14).

Plaintiff personally attended the settlement conference, flying in from Virginia, which resulted in an agreement between the Parties to resolve this matter on a class basis. Courts have approved similar incentive awards in cases brought under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1), Aliano v. Joe Caputo and Sons-Algonquin, Inc., 09 C 910, Doc. 296, (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2012) ($10,000), and is below other incentive awards.

The statute prohibits printing “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.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). Nothing about Congress’s decision to prohibit printing more than the last 5 digits of the card number calls into question the meaning of its prohibition on printing the expiration date.