A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

FACTA Credit Card Lawsuits

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

FACTA Credit Card Lawsuit Attorneys

When you buy something with your credit card or debit card, you may keep the receipt for a while but eventually you throw it away and probably don’t think much more about it. Ordinarily, this is perfectly fine to do because receipts are not supposed to contain information that could be used by others to commit fraud. In fact, the information printed on receipts is governed by a federal law call the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA.

If a merchant is printing receipts that contain too much customer information, you as a consumer have the right to hold them accountable.

The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. handles FACTA lawsuits on behalf of consumers in California, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania. We are highly skilled consumer protection lawyers with extensive experience in FACTA lawsuits and related credit card privacy cases. We take on these cases because we believe that consumer privacy is extremely important, and stores that print too much credit card information on receipts are putting people’s privacy at risk.

What Is FACTA?

Passed into law by Congress in 2003, FACTA is designed to help fight identity theft. It specifically states that credit card and debit card receipts given to customers must meet certain requirements, known as “truncation requirements”:

  • Receipts must not display the card’s expiration date.
  • Receipts may display the last five digits of the account number, but no more.

FACTA required businesses to upgrade their point-of-sale and card processing machines by 2006, so all businesses operating today should have proper machines.

How to Recognize an Improperly Truncated Receipt

A receipt that complies with FACTA will look something like this:

  • Account Number: **** **** **** 1 2345
  • Expiration: ****

There are many examples of ways that a receipt can violate FACTA. Remember, a receipt is in violation if it contains any account numbers other than the last five digits or any expiration date information. All of the following examples would be FACTA violations:

  • Account Number: 1234 **** **** 9999
  • Account Number: **** **** *123 4567
  • Expiration: 5/24
  • Expiration 5/2024
  • Expires: 05/****

Receipts that are emailed, written by hand, imprinted, or included inside a package shipped to your home or office are not required to comply with FACTA.

Should I Pursue a FACTA Lawsuit?

Reporting FACTA violations helps both you and others. If you received an improper receipt, it is likely that many other people who shop at the same place are also having their credit card information exposed on their receipts as well. This puts your privacy and the privacy of others in jeopardy.

Businesses can face penalties of between $100 and $1,000 per violation. Since there are typically hundreds or even thousands of people whose credit card information has been exposed at a business, these cases often proceed as class actions, which allow all the affected people to proceed in their lawsuit together as one.

If you do get a receipt that you believe is in violation of FACTA, the best thing to do is seek out a qualified consumer rights attorney’s advice. An attorney will be able to quickly confirm that this is a violation or explain why it isn’t.

Contact Our FACTA Lawsuit Attorneys Today

Consumers in California, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania can reach out to the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C for advice on any FACTA credit card or debit card receipt question. You can call us at 1-877-619-8966 or send us an email.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.