The Illinois Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s decision, ruling that Calley Fausett lacked standing to bring a class-action lawsuit against Walgreen Company (Walgreens) for allegedly violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). The case centered around Walgreens printing more than the last five digits of debit card numbers on customer receipts.
Background of the Case
Calley Fausett filed a class-action complaint against Walgreens, alleging that the pharmacy chain willfully violated FACTA by printing the first six and last four digits of her debit card number on receipts when she reloaded her Green Dot prepaid debit card with cash at a Phoenix, Arizona Walgreens store. Fausett argued that this practice increased her risk of identity theft. FACTA aims to protect consumers by limiting the information printed on receipts.
Walgreens countered that Fausett’s claim was not actionable because she lacked standing, meaning she hadn’t suffered a concrete injury as a result of the alleged violation. The circuit court initially denied Walgreens’ motion to dismiss and later certified a nationwide class. The appellate court affirmed the class certification, focusing solely on the issue of standing and siding with Fausett.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts, reversing the appellate court’s affirmation of class certification. Justice Holder White, delivering the opinion of the court, stated that Fausett lacked standing to bring her cause of action.
Key Legal Principles
The court emphasized that Illinois standing law differs from federal standing law. While federal courts require a “concrete” and “particularized” injury for a plaintiff to have standing, Illinois courts have a more nuanced approach.
The court outlined two types of standing under Illinois law: common-law standing and statutory standing. Common-law standing requires an injury in fact to a legally recognized interest. Statutory standing, on the other hand, requires the fulfillment of statutory conditions to sue for legislatively created relief.
In this case, the court determined that Fausett’s claim invoked common-law standing because the liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which FACTA falls under, didn’t explicitly define who has the right to sue for statutory damages. In other words, Congress did not expressly grant standing to individuals in this situation.
Why Fausett Lacked Standing
The court pointed to Fausett’s own testimony and evidence presented by Walgreens. Fausett admitted she had not been a victim of identity theft since the incident. Walgreens’ expert report argued that the bank identification number (BIN) printed on the receipt didn’t contain personal identifiers that could lead to identity theft.
The court drew a parallel to a recent case, *Petta v. Christie Business Holdings Co., P.C.*, where the court found that an increased risk of harm, without a concrete injury, was insufficient to establish standing in a complaint seeking monetary damages. The court determined that Fausett, at best, had shown an increased risk of identity theft, which wasn’t enough to establish standing under Illinois common law.
Implications of the Ruling
Because Fausett lacked standing, she couldn’t maintain her individual claim against Walgreens. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the circuit court’s grant of class certification was an abuse of discretion. The court reversed the judgments of both the appellate and circuit courts and ordered the circuit court to dismiss Fausett’s first amended complaint.
The decision clarifies the requirements for standing in FACTA cases under Illinois law, particularly when seeking statutory damages without demonstrable harm. It emphasizes the importance of proving a concrete injury, not just a potential risk, to bring a lawsuit.