Appeals Court Hears Objections to $6.3M Godiva Credit Card Receipt Settlement

Consumers have filed appeals against a $6.3 million credit card receipt class action settlement with Godiva, although approaches to the appeal have differed.

The Godiva receipt class action lawsuit alleged that the chocolate company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (FACTA) by printing too much information on receipts. A settlement was reached in 2016 and was later approved, but has since faced appeal which has halted any payouts to consumers.

Objectors Eric Isaacson and James Price recently defended their appeal in court, but diverged in their objections to the $6.3 million settlement.

Isaacson argues that the case should not have been approved because plaintiff David S. Muransky is not a sufficient Class representative for settlement beneficiaries. As Muransky did not suffer a “concrete injury” and was not a victim of identity theft, Isaacson argues that he should not be allowed to represent consumers damaged by Godiva’s alleged FACTA violations.

In contract, Price defended Muransky’s ability to represent the settlement Class but took issue with the court’s approval of the settlement terms – specifically those pertaining to counsel fees and an incentive award for Muransky.

According to Price, the district court wrongly required Class Members to object for the request for attorneys’ fees before the request was even filed. Price also argues that the request for one third of the settlement fund in attorneys’ fees was not justified based on the record. Additionally, Price claims that Muransky’s incentive award for $10,000 was not justified considering his allegedly minimal efforts and the measly $60 to be received by Class Members.

Credit Card Receipt Laws

The Godiva FACTA class action lawsuit was filed by Muransky in April 2015. He claimed that the chocolate company violated federal law by printing credit card receipts with the last four digits of a payment card and the first six digits of an account number.

FACTA is a federal law which includes a variety of protections aimed to manage the risk of identity theft. One of the measures authorized by FACTA is credit card receipt requirements. These requirements allow electronically printed receipts to contain only the last five digits of a payment card number. Under FACTA, no information about a card’s expiration date is allowed to be printed on the receipt.

These guidelines are met through a process known as truncation. Truncation replaces certain important digits with a symbol such as # or *. For example, a properly truncated receipt would include the card number: #### #### ###1 2345.

FACTA exists to protect consumers from identity theft and fraud. If companies fail to adhere to FACTA requirements, they may be forced to pay between $100 and $1,000 in statutory penalties for each violation.

Godiva did not admit to violating FACTA with its credit card receipts, but agreed to pay $6.3 million to resolve the claims against them in early 2016. The deal was reportedly the third largest FACTA settlement in history, according to settlement approval motions.

The Credit Card Receipt Class Action Lawsuit is Price v. Godiva Chocolatier Inc., et al., Case No. 16-16486, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Join a Free Credit Card Receipt Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you have a receipt, invoice or contract from a retailer or vendor that includes more than the last five digits of your credit card or debit card number or any portion of the expiration date, you may qualify to file a credit card receipt class action lawsuit.

Learn More

This article is not legal advice. It is presented 
for informational purposes only.