Start Fair dating act

Fair dating act

(C) Nothing in this Act affects the third-party practice as recognized in the rules and statutes of this state with regard to the assertion by a defendant of rights to contribution or indemnity.

(B) Nothing in this Act abrogates or affects the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liability to the extent recognized by existing law.

7, 2017) (dismissing second amended complaint “because Plaintiff still has not plausibly identified a concrete, certainly impending injury resulting from the non-compliant receipt”), ., No.

May 17, 2017) (“there is no evidence that Congress, in enacting FACTA, intended to create for consumers a substantive right to receive a redacted copy of their credit card receipt”), ., No.

(B) After adequate time for discovery, a party may move to strike the designation of a responsible nonparty on the ground that there is no evidence that the designated person is responsible for any portion of the claimant’s alleged injury or damage.

The court shall grant the motion to strike unless a defendant produces sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the designated person’s responsibility for the claimant’s injury or damage. (A) Notwithstanding this Act, joint and several liability shall apply to any person or entity that consciously and deliberately pursues a common plan or design to commit an intentional tort and actively take part in that intentional tort.

In , for example, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that because the plaintiff “discovered the violation immediately and nobody else ever saw the non-compliant receipt,” “it is hard to imagine how the expiration date’s presence could have increased the risk that [the plaintiff’s] identity would be compromised.”[23] Additionally, in passing the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007 (the “Clarification Act”),[24] Congress “specifically declared that failure to truncate a card’s expiration date, without more, does not heighten the risk of identity theft.”[25] Thus, the court concluded that “without a showing of injury apart from the statutory violation, the failure to truncate a credit card’s expiration date is insufficient to confer Article III standing.”[26] Subsequently, district courts in the Second,[27] Fifth,[28] Ninth,[29] and Tenth[30] Circuits have followed .

Several decisions acknowledge and rely on the congressional declaration, expressed through the Clarification Act, that the mere failure to truncate an expiration date does not increase the risk of identity theft.[31] And in ., the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit, determining the impact of the Clarification Act was “dispositive.”[32] The Second Circuit explained that “[w]hile we acknowledge that the Clarification Act maintained FACTA’s prohibition on this practice, we decline to draw plaintiff’s proposed inference” that the prohibition necessarily recognizes a “concrete harm.”[33] Even some district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have now adopted the majority approach.

In court recognized that “the Second Circuit and several district courts have held that the printing of the first six digits of a credit card account number on a receipt does not constitute an injury in fact because the first six digits merely identify the institution that issued the card, and are not part of the consumer’s unique account number.”[36] The court also recognized that “the Seventh and Second Circuits, as well as multiple district courts, have held that under Without standing to pursue a FACTA claim in federal court, a consumer might try to assert such a claim in state court.[38] Yet, some states have standing jurisprudence that mirrors that of federal law.