Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dimitriy Simonoff v. Expedia

May 24, 2011

DIMITRIY SIMONOFF,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
EXPEDIA, INC.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01517-RSL

The opinion of the court was delivered by: McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:

FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2011-Seattle, Washington

Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Raymond C. Fisher, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge McKeown

COUNSEL

OPINION

In 2003, Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"), Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952, an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., in part to combat identity theft. FACTA provides that 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.

15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). This restriction covers only "receipts that are electronically printed, and [does] 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." Id. § 1681c(g)(2).

Expedia, Inc. runs a website that allows users to make travel arrangements online. Like other merchants "that accept[ ] credit cards or debit cards," see id. § 1681c(g)(1), Expedia must comply with FACTA. Dimitriy Simonoff purchased travel arrangements through Expedia's website. Expedia then emailed him a receipt, which included the expiration date of Simonoff's credit card. He claims that this email receipt violates FACTA.

The question we consider under FACTA is the meaning of the words "print" and "electronically printed" in connection with an emailed receipt. "Print" refers to many different technologies-from Mesopotamian cuneiform writing on clay cylinders to the Gutenberg press in the fifteenth century, Xerography in the early twentieth century, and modern digital printing-but all of those technologies involve the making of a tangible impression on paper or other tangible medium. See generally S.H. Steinberg, Five Hundred Years of Printing (new ed. 1996). Although computer technology has significantly advanced in recent years, we commonly still speak of printing to paper and not to, say, iPad screens. Nobody says, "Turn on your Droid (or iPhone or iPad or Blackberry) and print a map of downtown San Francisco on your screen." We conclude that under FACTA, a receipt that is transmitted to the consumer via email and then digitally displayed on the consumer's screen is not an "electronically printed" receipt. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Simonoff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

ANALYSIS

I. FORUM SELECTION ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.