The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendant W&W Wholesale Inc.'s (W&W) motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is denied.
Plaintiffs are individuals that allegedly used their credit cards in 2010 and 2011 at W&W's stores and were allegedly provided printed receipts containing the expiration dates of their credit cards. Plaintiffs contend that by printing the expiration dates on the credit card receipts W&W violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1) of The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). Plaintiffs also allege that W&W willfully violated FACTA. W&W moves to dismiss the instant action.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)), a court must "accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint" and make reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(stating that the tenet is "inapplicable to legal conclusions"); Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002). To defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted)(quoting in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that contains factual allegations that are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability . . . stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted).
W&W concedes that the allegations in the complaint suggest non-compliance with FACTA, but argues that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to show that any non-compliance was willful. Willfulness under FACTA is defined as "recklessness-something more than negligence but less than knowledge of the law's requirements." Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 523 F.3d 719, 726 (7th Cir. 2008)(citing Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007)); see also Shlahtichman v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 615 F.3d 794, 803-04 (7th Cir. 2010)(explaining that willfulness under FACTA was defined in Safeco).
W&W argues that FACTA is not clearly written and that W&W was merely confused or negligent when it failed to comply with the requirements of FACTA. W&W argues that the fact that Congress passed The Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007, Pub.L. No. 110-241, 122 Stat. 1565 (Clarification Act), clarifying provisions in FACTA, shows that FACTA is unclear and W&W was justified in its misunderstanding. FACTA provides the following:
(g) Truncation of credit card and debit card numbers
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.
15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). The amount of civil liability for a willful violation of FACTA is provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. The Clarification Act ...