Insights
Publications

The California Supreme Court Loosens Restrictions On Internet Retailers

2/5/2013 Articles

Attempting to strike a balance between the competing concerns of privacy and fraud protection, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act does not apply to online retailers that collect personally identifiable information (PII) in connection with an online credit card transaction. 

 

The plaintiff in the case, David Krescent, filed a proposed class-action suit against Apple in June 2011 after he was allegedly required to provide his telephone number and address for online media purchases using his credit card.  In a split decision, the California Supreme Court held that California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which forbids the collection of PII for transactions, applies only to brick-and-mortar businesses, not to online purchases of electronically downloadable products.  The court reasoned that, unlike brick-and-mortar businesses, online retailers have no opportunity to view personal identification information like a drivers’ license.  As such, a request for PII by an online retailer in connection with an Internet credit card transaction is legitimately related to the need for preventing credit card fraud. 

 

According to the majority, “While it is clear that the Legislature enacted the Credit Card Act to protect consumer privacy, it is also clear that the Legislature did not intend to achieve privacy protection without regard to exposing consumers and retailers to undue risk of fraud.”  Nonetheless, despite holding that the Song-Beverly Act’s restriction on the collection of PII does not apply to online purchases of electronically downloadable products, the opinion ended on a cautious note:  “We cast no doubt on Krescent’s claim that protecting consumer privacy in online transactions is an important policy goal, nor do we suggest that combating fraud is as important or more important than protecting privacy.  We express no view on this significant issue of public policy.” 

 

The majority decision was accompanied by two written dissents (joined collectively by three of the Justices) and is likely to face criticism from consumer privacy advocates and others who argue for increasingly narrow restrictions on the collection and use of personal information on the Internet.  As the majority foreshadowed in its opinion, further clarification by the California legislature on the use of PII by online retailers can be anticipated.

Firm Highlights

News

3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial

Eugene Mar spoke to Law360 about the  MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc.  case in the article, " 3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial." In the article, Eugene said he's...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Elevates Five to Partner

Read More
News

Benchmark Litigation 2021 Ranks Farella Among Top Litigation Firms in California

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel continues to be ranked among the top litigation firms in California in the  Benchmark Litigation  2021 guide. Farella was ranked “Highly Recommended” for Dispute Resolution...

Read More
Publication

Three Steps Licensees Can Take to Protect Their IP Rights in Bankruptcy

During periods of widespread economic disruption such as the present, operating businesses must be able to identify and respond to threats to the financial health of their contracting counterparts in order to protect key...

Read More
Publication

Artificial Intelligence Can’t Patent Inventions: So What?

The USPTO’s  recent landmark decision  ( 16/524,350 ) concluding artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be a named patent inventor perhaps sparked fears of super-robots inventing critical technologies that, alas, receive no patent protection. If an...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More
Publication

Insights Into the First Patent Trial in Waco, Texas - MV3 Partners v. Roku

A 7-person jury in Waco, Texas, recently returned its verdict in the first patent trial held before Judge Albright: defense verdict, no finding of infringement. In the MV3 Partners v. Roku dispute, MV3 Partners...

Read More
Publication

Breaking up the Patent Monopoly for the Benefit of Batteries

The patent monopoly is at odds with the global need for battery storage technology. As the world mobilizes towards climate change solutions, companies with battery patents will face increasing pressure to share this critical...

Read More
News

Farella Braun Files Amicus Brief in Support of Humanitarian Organizations in Ninth Circuit Appeal of WhatsApp v. NSO

SAN FRANCISCO, December 23, 2020: Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel today submitted an amicus brief in support of civil society organizations in the NSO Group v. WhatsApp appeal pending before the...

Read More
Publication

How Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws Affect Platform Providers’ Relationships With ISVs, API Developers, and Scrapers

A wide variety of business and consumer platforms host mutually beneficial ecosystems. But these ecosystems are also fraught with antitrust risk that arises when platforms try to terminate or modify the terms of third-party...

Read More