CAMDEN, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – Six Flags Great Adventure is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss a Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) complaint against it.
Defendants Six Flags Great Adventure LLC and Six Flags Entertainment Corp. are seeking relief from a complaint filed by plaintiff Yaakov A. Katz, individually and on behalf of a class of persons he claims are similarly situated, calling the complaint futile in a Jan. 11 dismissal request.
The complaint, authored by defense counsel Andrea D’Ambra of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP of New York, stems from Six Flags' recent discovery that some receipts it was printing included the first six digits of payment card account numbers after it installed an EMV/chip reader. D'Ambra argues that because the six numbers do not contain any personal information and they did not willfully violate the FACTA, there is no actionable claim against Six Flags.
Furthermore, D’Ambra argued that Katz’s claim of “elevated risk” due to a possible security compromise in August is undermined since he cannot suffer injury, specifically since the remaining, unexposed numbers could be a million separate combinations of likely digits.
And without the expiration date, Card Verification Value or ZIP code, the card can't be compromised, the company says.
D’Ambra contends such “no injury” class actions are regularly discharged, and there is “no reason why a state court would or should rule differently on this federal issue, particularly where New Jersey authority shows that any such remand would be futile,” D’Ambra writes in the dismissal request.
The attorney cites Ashcroft v. Iqbal from 2009 to prove the point.
"Threadbare recitals of elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,' nor do ‘unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me' accusations,” D’Ambra wrote in the dismissal request.
With no impermissible cardholder information on the receipt or Six Flags not purposefully violating the statute, FACTA was not violated, D’Ambra added.
She also cited Noble v. Nevada Checker CAB Corp. from 2016 in her argument.
“The court cannot reasonably infer that printing the first six and last four digits of plaintiff's credit card materially increased the risk of future harm, because doing so ‘gives an identity thief no more personal information about a person's account than Congress has permitted to be printed on receipts,’” D’Ambra wrote in the dismissal.
Lastly, D’Ambra points to Kamal v. J. Crew Grp. Inc. from 2016 to argue even if anyone other than Kutz saw the receipt as he alleged, “the printing of additional information about the issuing bank on plaintiff’s receipts could not possibly cause any damage to him, particularly where a bad actor would have to sift through up to 1,000,000 additional number combinations, guess the card’s expiration date, and provide either ZIP code information,” according to the dismissal request.
The attorney concluded her argument noting remanding the matter would be futile and contrary to public policy; however if indeed it was to be remanded it should be combined with other Six Flags complaints similarly seen in Georgia, California and Illinois.
“These cases present common questions of fact in different districts, and consolidating them will provide greater convenience for parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions as compared with having them proceed separately,” D’Ambra wrote.