MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS M. DURKIN, District Judge.
Sulejman Nicaj filed this action against Shoe Carnival, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA")) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). R. 1. Shoe Carnival has moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). R. 21. For the following reasons, the motion is granted, and the case is dismissed.
Shoe Carnival is one of the largest footwear retailers in the United States and, as of February 2, 2013, operates twenty-six stores in Illinois, including one in Naperville. R. 1 ¶11. For consumer transactions, it accepts Visa and MasterCard credit and debit cards and American Express and Discover credit cards. R. 1 ¶ 14.
On October 29, 2013, Nicaj used his Visa debit card to make a purchase at Shoe Carnival's Naperville store. R. 1 ¶ 21. After Shoe Carnival's employee used Nicaj's card to complete the transaction, the employee handed Nicaj "an electronically printed receipt at the point of sale that contained the month of [Nicaj's] Visa card's expiration date." R. 1 ¶ 22. Nicaj alleges that Shoe Carnival's "point of sale terminal at its store in Naperville, Illinois, was programmed to print the month of credit and debit card's expiration dates on electronically printed receipts." R. 1 ¶ 23.
As a result of this transaction, Nicaj filed suit against Shoe Carnival on October 31, 2013, contending that Shoe Carnival violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1), which prohibits a business from including the expiration date on any electronically printed receipt that is "provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction." R. 1. He brings this suit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. R. 1 ¶¶ 36-49.
A party is permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) to move for judgment on the pleadings after the complaint and answer have been filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court reviews a Rule 12(c) motion employing the same standard as that applied when reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Hayes v. City of Chi., 670 F.3d 810, 813 (7th Cir. 2012). In other words, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, Mann v. Vogel, 707 F.3d 872, 877 (7th Cir. 2013), and will only grant the motion "if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief." Thomas v. Guardsmark, Inc., 381 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir. 2004).
Nicaj alleges that Shoe Carnival willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1), which provides:
(g) Truncation of credit cards 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. (emphasis added)
If a merchant violates the statute as a result of mere negligence, a plaintiff may recover actual damages. See § 1681o(a)(1). "If the violation was willful, however, FACTA allows a plaintiff to elect to recover either actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1000. A court may also award punitive damages in cases involving willful violations." Long v. Tommy ...