Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-036-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11145 MELISSA TYLER vs. MICHAELS STORES, INC. Suffolk. November 6, 2012. ‑ March 11, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Privacy. Statute, Construction. Consumer Protection Act, Consumer, Availability of remedy. Words, “Personal identification information,” “Credit card transaction form.” Certification of a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Jeffrey I. Carton, of New York (Douglas Gregory Blankinship with him) for the plaintiff. Eric R. McDonough, of California (Jonathan W. Lent with him) for the defendant. Joseph J. Lazzarotti, of New Jersey, & David J. Kerman & Brian C. Childs, for Retail Litigation Center, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. BOTSFORD, J. In 2011, Melissa Tyler, a customer of Michaels Stores, Inc. (Michaels), filed an action on behalf of herself and a putative class of Michaels customers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Tyler’s complaint alleged that Michaels unlawfully writes customers’ personal identification information on credit card transaction forms in violation of G. L. c. 93, § 105 (a) (§ 105 [a]), when Michaels’s employees request and record customers’ zip codes in processing credit card transactions.[1] A judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts certified the following questions to this court pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): “1. Under [G. L. c.] 93, [§] 105 (a), may a [zip code] be ‘personal identification information’ because a [zip code] could be necessary to the credit card issuer to identify the card holder in order to complete the transaction?” “2. Under [G. L. c.] 93, [§] 105 (a), may a plaintiff bring an action for this privacy right violation absent identity fraud?” “3. Under [G. L. c.] 93, [§] 105 (a), may the words ‘credit card transaction form’ refer equally to an electronic or a paper transaction form?” We answer “Yes” to the first question, but for different reasons than the judge set forth in the question itself. We also answer “Yes” to the second and third questions. Background. Tyler’s complaint alleges the following facts that we accept as true for the purposes of answering the certified questions. On several occasions during the past […]