Urban Outfitters Wants Zip Code Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

On Oct. 17, Urban Outfitters Inc. and Anthropologie Inc. filed a motion in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss a zip code class action lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs do not have evidence of how the companies’ practice of allegedly collecting consumer zip codes is in violation of consumer protection laws.

Back in March, this Urban Outfitters zip code class action lawsuit had been dismissed by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell who ruled the plaintiffs could not fully plead four of five claims under the District of Columbia’s Use of Consumer Identification Information Act in order to move their case forward. Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie further argue that the Consumer Identification Information Act only prohibits retailers from requesting addresses  or phone numbers, not zip codes, from their consumers.

This zip code class action lawsuit against Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie was filed by plaintiffs Whitney Hancock and Jamie White last June, alleging the two clothing retail stores violated consumer protection laws by requesting and storing consumer’s zip codes during a credit card transaction. Hancock and White allege Urban and Anthropologie would then use commercial databases to identify consumers’ home or work addresses.

Although the Urban Outfitters zip code class action lawsuit was dismissed in March, Hancock and White appealed the case one month later. The plaintiffs have also requested that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals certify two questions relating to the Consumers Identification Information Act.

In response to this appeal, Urban and Anthropologie have asked the court to let Judge Howell’s original dismissal of the case stand. Specifically, in response to the plaintiffs’ claim that a zip code could potentially constitute as an address, Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie want to uphold the judge’s conclusion that the court would have to look to the commonly accepted meaning of “address,” since consumer privacy statutes do not define the term.

In their bid to dismiss this zip code class action lawsuit, Urban Outfitters argued, “As the district court recognized, names, streets and towns are the ‘essential’ aspects of an address, and nowhere does Hancock allege (nor could she) that any of this information was requested of her by Urban Outfitters.” Thus, the retailers argue Hancock and White’s allegation is rendered moot.

Urban and Anthropologie additionally highlighted Judge Howell’s opinion that Urban Outfitters allegedly took precautions to comply with consumer privacy laws. By storing the requested zip code information in the sales registers, a separate machine from the credit card swipe apparatus, the defending clothing retailers argue the plaintiffs cannot prove Urban or Anthropologie requested consumer address information for credit card transaction purposes. They further claim that the zip code request was never presented as a condition of finishing a consumer’s sales transaction.

No decision has yet been made concerning this Urban Outfitters zip code class action lawsuit in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Whitney Hancock and Jamie White are represented by Scott Michael Perry and Mikhael D. Charnoff of Perry Charnoff PLLC.

The Urban Outfitters Zip Code Class Action Lawsuit is Hancock, et al v. Urban Outfitters Inc., et al, Case No. 14-7047, in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

UPDATE: On June 24, 2016, the plaintiffs argued, on appeal, that they continue to have standing to sue Urban Outfitters even after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins which reportedly limits the kinds of harm plaintiffs may have standing to sue over.