2008—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 110–241 added subsec. (d).
1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and in introductory provisions substituted “Any person who” for “Any consumer reporting agency or user of information which”.
Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(b), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows: “any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure;”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(c), added subsec. (b).
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(e)(1), added subsec. (c).
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–208 effective 365 days after
Section effective upon the expiration of one hundred and eighty days following
Pub. L. 108–159, title III, § 312(f),
Pub. L. 110–241, § 2, “(a) The Congress finds as follows:“(1) The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act [of 2003] (commonly referred to as ‘FACTA’) [Pub. L. 108–159, see Short Title of 2003 Amendment note set out under section 1601 of this title] was enacted into law in 2003 and 1 of the purposes of such Act is to prevent criminals from obtaining access to consumers’ private financial and credit information in order to reduce identity theft and credit card fraud.“(2) As part of that law, the Congress enacted a requirement, through an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act [15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], that 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 card holder at the point of the sale or transaction.“(3) Many merchants understood that this requirement would be satisfied by truncating the account number down to the last 5 digits based in part on the language of the provision as well as the publicity in the aftermath of the passage of the law.“(4) Almost immediately after the deadline for compliance passed, hundreds of lawsuits were filed alleging that the failure to remove the expiration date was a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act even where the account number was properly truncated.“(5) None of these lawsuits contained an allegation of harm to any consumer’s identity.“(6) Experts in the field agree that proper truncation of the card number, by itself as required by the amendment made by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act [of 2003], regardless of the inclusion of the expiration date, prevents a potential fraudster from perpetrating identity theft or credit card fraud.“(7) Despite repeatedly being denied class certification, the continued appealing and filing of these lawsuits represents a significant burden on the hundreds of companies that have been sued and could well raise prices to consumers without corresponding consumer protection benefit.“(b) The purpose of this Act [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1601 of this title] is to ensure that consumers suffering from any actual harm to their credit or identity are protected while simultaneously limiting abusive lawsuits that do not protect consumers but only result in increased cost to business and potentially increased prices to consumers.”
Pub. L. 110–241, § 3(b),