Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. - 51 Cal. 4th 524, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 531, 246 P.3d 612 (2011)

Rule:

A ZIP code constitutes "personal identification information" as that phrase is used in Civ. Code, § 1747.08, of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq. Thus, requesting and recording a cardholder's ZIP code, without more, violates the Act.

Facts:

Plaintiff Jessica Pineda sued defendant Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., asserting a violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq.). The plaintiff alleged that while she was paying for a purchase with her credit card in one of the defendant’s stores, the cashier asked the plaintiff for her ZIP Code. Believing it necessary to complete the transaction, the plaintiff provided the requested information and the cashier recorded it. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant subsequently used her name and Zip Code to locate her home address. The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Div. One, No. D054355, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that a Zip Code, without more, did not constitute “personal identification information” as that term was defined in Civ. Code, § 1747.08. Plaintiff challenged the decision.

Issue:

Would Civ. Code, § 1747.08 be violated if, during a credit card transaction, a business requested and recorded a customer’s Zip Code?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that personal identification information, as that term was used in § 1747.08, included a cardholder's ZIP code. Requesting and recording a cardholder's ZIP code, without more, violates the Act. According to the Court, a ZIP code was readily understood to be part of an address. The legislature, by providing that "personal identification information" included the cardholder's address, intended to include components of the address. Otherwise, a business could ask not just for a cardholder's ZIP code, but also for the cardholder's street and city in addition to the ZIP code, so long as it did not also ask for the house number. Such a construction would render the statute's protections hollow. Thus, the word "address" in the statute should be construed as encompassing not only a complete address, but also its components. That a cardholder's ZIP code pertained to individuals in addition to the cardholder did not render it dissimilar to an address or telephone number. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings.