DSW Store Receipts Contain Too Much Information, Class Action Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Designer Brands, Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit over allegations the company illegally disclosed too much of customers’ credit and debit card information on receipts printed at its DSW stores.

According to the complaint, the lead plaintiff made a purchase from a DSW store in Pasadena, California and discovered that the defendant had printed the first six and last four digits of her credit card number on the receipt. The case claims DSW has a practice of printing 10 digits of customers’ card numbers on receipts at all of its stores across the United States, which exposes shoppers to an “elevated risk” of identity theft and fraud.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) forbids businesses from printing more than the last five digits of customers’ credit or debit card numbers on receipts, the case explains. Many card-issuing organizations, such as Visa and MasterCard, have also published their own rules and guidelines that require merchants to truncate cardholder information on receipts in order to remain compliant with the FACTA, the suit states.

By including 10 digits of the plaintiff’s and similarly situated customers’ credit card numbers on receipts, DSW violated the FACTA and breached its agreements with credit card processing companies, according to the complaint. The case contends that although DSW was aware of FACTA’s requirements given the defendant has previously faced legal action over similar claims about its receipts, the company still failed to comply with the statute.

The lawsuit looks to represent all persons in the U.S. who engaged in at least one credit or debit card transaction at any of Designer Brands’ U.S. locations since September 24, 2019 during which the defendant provided a receipt that displayed more than the last five digits of the card number or expiration date. Originally filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, the case has since been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.