Zip Codes are Personal Identification in Massachusetts, but not Like Zip Codes are Personal Identification in California

What a difference as state statute makes.  It was about a year ago that the California Supreme Court, in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, found that a zip code is personal identification information and, therefore, California businesses cannot request and record them.  The Court interpreted California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which prohibits California stores receiving credit cards from requiring and recording personal identification. 

The Court found that a zip code is personal identification information since the Act identified personal identification information as “information concerning the cardholder, other than information set forth on the credit card, and including, but not limited to, the cardholder’s address and telephone number.”   Since a zip code is part of an address, the Court determined that a zip code is personal information.

The Massachusetts Court, in Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., interpreted a law with much the same language, that a business that accepts credit cards cannot collect personal identification.  The Massachusetts law states that, “Personal identification information shall include, but shall not be limited to, a credit card holder’s address or telephone number.”  No surprise the Massachusetts court found that zip codes are personal identification just as the California court did.

So, who cares? Insurance companies care.  A violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card results in automatic penalties of up to $250 for the first violation and $1000 for each subsequent violation.   The Massachusetts law requires the plaintiff to show actual damages, which the Massachusetts plaintiff could not show.  It is reported that there were many California class action suits after Court’s decision in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma.  The outcomes of these two cases demonstrates how privacy liability risks can differ between states – headache for multi-state businesses and their insurers.

No surprise that there are lots of jobs for privacy professionals.

 The ruling in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma may be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48602246/Pineda-v-Williams-Sonoma-S178241-Cal-Supreme-Court-Feb-10-2011

 The ruling in Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc.   may be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77818868/Tyler-v-Michaels-Stores-11-10920-WGY-D-mass-Jan-6-2012