BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                             Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
                              2011-2012 Regular Session


          AB 1219 (Perea)
          As Amended June 22, 2011
          Hearing Date: July 5, 2011
          Fiscal: No
          Urgency: No
          SK
                    

                                       SUBJECT
                                           
                         Credit Cards: Personal Information

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          This bill would create a new exception to existing law's 
          prohibition against the collection of zip codes during credit 
          card sales transactions.  This bill would permit the collection 
          of zip code information when a person or entity accepting a 
          credit card in a sales transaction at a retail motor fuel 
          dispenser or retail motor fuel payment island automated cashier 
          uses the zip code information solely for prevention of fraud, 
          theft, or identity theft.   

          This bill would provide that it is the intent of the above 
          amendments to clarify existing law. 

                                      BACKGROUND  

          The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Song-Beverly) is "designed to 
          promote consumer protection" and it "imposes fair business 
          practices for the protection of the consumers. 'Such a law is 
          remedial in nature and in the public interest Ýand] is to be 
          liberally construed to the end of fostering its objectives.'"  
          (Florez v. Linens N Things, Inc. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 447, 
          450; rev. denied 2003 Cal. LEXIS 5453.) (citations omitted) 

          Recognizing the protective purpose of Song-Beverly, in February 
          2011, the California Supreme Court held in Pineda v. 
          Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524 that personal 
          identification information-as used in the act-includes a 
          cardholder's zip code information.  As a result, a business is 
                                                                (more)



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 2 of ?



          in violation of Song-Beverly if it requests a customer's zip 
          code as a part of a credit card transaction. 

          According to the sponsors, a number of lawsuits were filed after 
          the Pineda decision came down.  Prior versions of this bill were 
          broader and applied to all retailers, allowing them to collect 
          zip code data in specified instances.  Because of concerns that 
          the bill was overly broad and would inadvertently undermine the 
          strong consumer protections contained in Song-Beverly, the bill 
          was amended several times in the Assembly and scaled back to its 
          current form.  The bill now would create a new exception to 
          existing law's prohibition against the collection of zip codes 
          during credit card sales transactions by permitting the 
          collection of zip code information when a person or entity 
          accepting a credit card in a sales transaction at a retail motor 
          fuel dispenser or retail motor fuel payment island uses the zip 
          code information solely for prevention of fraud, theft, or 
          identity theft.  Because of pending litigation, the bill would 
          provide that it is the intent of the above amendments to clarify 
          existing law. 

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  , the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, places 
          restrictions on credit card transactions.  (Civ. Code Sec. 1747 
          et seq.)

           Existing law  provides that no person or entity that accepts 
          credit cards for the transaction of business shall do any of the 
          following:
           request, or require as a condition to accepting the credit 
            card as payment for goods or services, the cardholder to write 
            any personal identification information on the credit card 
            transaction form; or
           request, or require as a condition of accepting the credit 
            card as payment for goods or services, the cardholder to 
            provide personal identification information, which the person 
            or entity accepting the credit card writes, causes to be 
            written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction 
            form;
           utilize a credit card form which contains preprinted spaces 
            specifically designated for filling in the cardholder's 
            personal identification information.  (Civ. Code Sec. 
            1747.08(a).)

           Existing law  provides the following exemptions from the above 
                                                                      



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 3 of ?



          restrictions: 
           if the credit card is being used as deposit to secure payment 
            in the event of default, loss, damages, or similar occurrence;
           cash advance transactions; or 
           if the person or entity accepting the credit card is 
            contractually obligated to provide personal identification 
            information in order to complete the credit card transaction 
            or is obligated to collect and record the personal 
            identification information by federal law or regulation; 
           if the personal identification information is required for a 
            special purpose incidental but related to the individual 
            credit card transaction, including, but not limited to, 
            information relating to shipping, delivery, servicing, or 
            installation of the purchased merchandise, or for special 
            orders.  (Civ. Code Sec. 1747.08(c).) 

           Existing law  defines "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.  (Civ. Code Sec. 
          1747.08(b).)  Existing case law has interpreted this definition 
          to include the cardholder's zip code.  (Pineda v. 
          Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524.) 

           This bill  would create a new exception to the above, thus 
          permitting the collection of zip code information when a person 
          or entity accepting a credit card in a sales transaction at a 
          retail motor fuel dispenser or retail motor fuel payment island 
          automated cashier  uses the zip code information solely for 
          prevention of fraud, theft, or identity theft.   

           This bill  would provide that it is the intent of the above 
          amendments to clarify existing law. 
           
                                        COMMENT
           
          1.  Stated need for the bill  
          
          The author writes:
          
            Song-Beverly Credit Card Act limits when a retailer or other 
            entity that accepts credit cards can collect additional 
            personal identification information (PII) from a customer.  In 
            the recent California Supreme Court decision of Pineda v. 
            Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.  . . .  zip code data was found 
            to be PII based on the facts of the case.  AB 1219 would 
                                                                      



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 4 of ?



            clarify existing law that the use of zip code data for the 
            purpose of fraud prevention is appropriate and not a violation 
            of the law.

            Since February, the Pineda decision has had serious unintended 
            consequences and resulted in over 150 class action suits filed 
            against retailers in California.  Unfortunately, a significant 
            portion of these suits were brought upon companies, including 
            fuel retailers, who had been collecting zip codes in an effort 
            to protect consumers.  Without clarification many fuel 
            retailers may face years of costly litigation.  

          The sponsor of this measure, the Western States Petroleum 
          Association (WSPA) writes that the bill:

            . . .  assures the continued ability of California drivers to 
            use credit cards for fuel purchases at the pump.  AB 1219, as 
            amended, would clarify existing law that the use of zip code 
            data for fuel purchases at the pump for the purpose of fraud 
            prevention is appropriate.  . . .  as a result of the ÝPineda] 
            decision, many additional lawsuits have been filed asserting 
            that use of zip code data in a variety of contexts is 
            inappropriate.  We are asking the legislature to clarify the 
            statute in order to continue a vital protection of consumers 
            and patrons of WSPA member companies.

            Class action lawsuits have been filed against WSPA member 
            companies for their collection of zip code information at 
            service stations.  Many other fuel retailers, especially 
            small-business operators, are concerned that they too will be 
            targeted.  The zip code data is requested during credit card 
            transactions at the pump for the sole purpose of fraud 
            prevention.  This information is never used for marketing 
            purposes. 

          2.  The California Supreme Court's decision in Pineda v. 
            Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.
           
          As described above, in February 2011, the California Supreme 
          Court held in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 
          Cal.4th 524 that personal identification information-as used in 
          Song-Beverly-includes a cardholder's zip code information.  As a 
          result, a business is in violation of Song-Beverly if it 
          requests a customer's zip code as a part of a credit card 
          transaction. 

                                                                      



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 5 of ?



          In Pineda, the plaintiff made a purchase at Williams-Sonoma and, 
          when the cashier asked for her zip code, the plaintiff provided 
          it because she believed that it was necessary to complete the 
          transaction.  The cashier entered the plaintiff's zip code into 
          the electronic cash register and, as a result, at the end of the 
          transaction, Williams-Sonoma had the plaintiff's name, credit 
          card number, and zip code in its database.  Using computer 
          software, Williams-Sonoma then performed reverse searches from 
          databases containing millions of names, addresses, email 
          addresses, and telephone numbers.  That software then matched 
          the plaintiff's name and zip code with her address, which had 
          not been disclosed by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff's complete 
          information was then stored in Williams-Sonoma's database and 
          the company used it to "market products to customers and may 
          also sell the information it has compiled to other businesses."  
          (Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.  51 Cal.4th at 528.)

          In holding that a zip code, without more, constitutes "personal 
          identification information" under Song-Beverly, the California 
          Supreme Court noted that the definition includes the 
          cardholder's address.  The question then, according to the 
          Court, is whether the Legislature intended that components of an 
          address be included.  On that point, the Court stated, "Ýt]he 
          answer must be yes.  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." (Id. at 531.)

          In addition, the Court noted that the lower court ruling siding 
          with Williams-Sonoma would "permit retailers to obtain 
          indirectly what they are clearly prohibited from obtaining 
          directly, 'end-running' the statute's clear purpose.  This is so 
          because information that can be permissibly obtained under the 
          Court of Appeal's construction could easily be used to locate 
          the cardholder's complete address or telephone number.  Such an 
          interpretation would vitiate the statute's effectiveness." (Id. 
          at 533.)
          The rationale for protecting consumers' personal identification 
          information in these instances has not changed over the years.  
          The Court cited this Committee's analysis of AB 2920 (Areias, 
          Ch. 999, Stats. 1990) which added the original restriction on 
          collection of personal identification information and noted 
          "'The Problem Ý] ? Ý] Retailers acquire this additional 
                                                                      



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 6 of ?



          personal information for their own business purposes-for 
          example, to build mailing and telephone lists which they can 
          subsequently use for their own in-house marketing efforts, or 
          sell to direct-mail or tele-marketing specialists, or to 
          others.' (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 
          2920 (1989-1990 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 27, 1990, pp. 3-4.)" 
          (Id. at 534.)

          After reviewing the legislative history of Song-Beverly, the 
          Court found that the history "demonstrates the Legislature 
          intended to provide robust consumer protections by prohibiting 
          retailers from soliciting and recording information about the 
          cardholder that is unnecessary to the credit card transaction."

          After determining that zip code information is personal 
          identification information for purposes of Song-Beverly, the 
          Court expressly rejected the defendant's argument that the 
          decision should apply only on a prospective basis because 
          retailers had previously assumed that a zip code was not 
          personal identification information.  Noting that it was "not 
          persuaded," the court stated that the statute provided 
          constitutionally adequate notice of the proscribed conduct.  
          (Id. at 536.)
           
           3.  Bill would directly impact pending litigation 
           
          According to the sponsor, a class action lawsuit has been filed 
          against WSPA member companies alleging a violation of 
          Song-Beverly for their collection of zip code information at 
          fuel pumps.  In response to Committee staff inquiries, the 
          author provided the Committee with a copy of a complaint filed 
          in Los Angeles Superior Court in February 2011 against "Chevron 
          Corporation, ConocoPhillips Company, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, 
          Shell Oil Company, Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, and 
          Thrifty Oil Co."  That complaint alleges that the defendant 
          gasoline companies required the plaintiff to enter his zip code 
          information into an electronic terminal as a condition of 
          payment in violation of Song-Beverly.  At this point, a status 
          conference in the case is scheduled for August 12, 2011. 

          By expressly creating a new exception to existing law's 
          prohibition against the collection of zip codes during credit 
          card sales transactions, this bill is intended-by the author and 
          sponsor's admission-to affect the above litigation.  The bill 
          would thus permit the collection of zip code information when a 
          person or entity accepting a credit card in a sales transaction 
                                                                      



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 7 of ?



          at a retail motor fuel dispenser or retail motor fuel payment 
          island automated cashier uses the zip code information solely 
          for prevention of fraud, theft, or identity theft.  In order to 
          specifically affect the pending case, the bill would provide 
          that it is the intent of the above amendments to clarify 
          existing law. 

          In the past, this Committee has raised concerns about bills 
          which interfere with pending litigation.  Any such interference 
          could result in a direct financial windfall to a private party, 
          prevent a court from deciding an action based upon the laws in 
          place at the time the cause of action accrued, or create a 
          situation where the Legislative branch is used to circumvent the 
          discretion and independence of the Judicial branch.

          As a result, the Committee should consider amending this bill to 
          provide that its application is prospective only.  In that way, 
          the bill would not affect the litigation that is currently 
          pending.  The following amendment would address this: 

             On page 6, line 4, after the period insert "This subparagraph 
             shall apply only to actions filed on or after January 1, 
             2012."

          IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO INTERFERE IN PENDING 
          LITIGATION?  IF NOT, SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO MAKE ITS 
          APPLICATION PROSPECTIVE ONLY? 
           
           4.  The practices covered by this bill may already be permissible 
            under existing law
           
          This bill would create a new exception to existing law's 
          prohibition against the collection of zip codes during credit 
          card sales transactions by permitting the collection of zip code 
          information when a person or entity accepting a credit card in a 
          sales transaction at a retail motor fuel dispenser or retail 
          motor fuel payment island automated cashier uses the zip code 
          information solely for prevention of fraud, theft, or identity 
          theft.  According to the sponsor, the zip code information goes 
          to the issuing bank to verify the credit card and the gas 
          station also records the number and retains it in order to 
          reconcile the transaction.   

          Sponsor Western States Petroleum Association asserts that, 
          because of pending litigation against its member companies, it 
          is "asking the legislature to clarify the statute in order to 
                                                                      



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 8 of ?



          continue a vital protection of consumers and patrons of WSPA 
          member companies."

          However, it may be the case that such a "clarification" is not 
          needed given that existing law already provides an exemption if 
          the person or entity accepting the credit card is contractually 
          obligated to provide personal identification information in 
          order to complete the credit card transaction.  In the case of 
          gas stations, the sponsor indicates that in some cases there may 
          be a contractual requirement that the gas station collect a 
          customer's zip code.  But it is more likely, according to the 
          sponsor, that there is no contractual requirement and instead 
          the issuing bank grants the gas station preferential pricing if 
          it collects a customer's zip code to verify the transaction.  

           5.  Clarifying amendments 
           
          The author has agreed to the following clarifying amendments:

            On page 6, line 1, delete "the personal identification" and 
            insert "zip code"

            On page 6, line 2, delete "or uses the personal information"

            On page 6, delete lines 3 and 4

            On page 7, line 32, delete "for the purposes"; delete line 33 
            and insert "solely for the prevention of fraud, theft, or 
            identity theft as provided under subdivision (c)(3)(B)"


           Support  :  California Manufacturers and Technology Association
           
          Opposition  :  None Known

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Western States Petroleum Association 

           Related Pending Legislation  :  None Known

           Prior Legislation  :  None Known

           Prior Vote  :

          Assembly Floor (Ayes 75, Noes 1)
                                                                      



          AB 1219 (Perea)
          Page 9 of ?



          Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 0)
          Assembly Banking and Finance Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

                                   **************