The critical thing to remember here is that the defendants will pay only nominal damages for negligent violations of FACTA. True, they will have to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, but I guarantee they will be a damn sight less than what the defense lawyers will charge once they finish churning the case. Unfair? I don’t think so, if that’s what it takes to get merchants to follow a law that has been on the books for 3 years now, and while VISA, MC and everyone else has been hammering on them to comply with a clear legal duty.

Finally, as to this “no harm” argument, that’s simply bogus. Sure, an expiration date is not enough, in an of itself, to permit someone to make unauthorized charges — it’s simply one piece of the puzzle. But the same can be said for your PIN number. Anyone who buys the “no harm” argument, please reply and post your bank account PIN. What harm could there be in that?

The judge was disgusted with the whole event, where there was no damage, but there was a lawsuit. So was I, and the judge let me say some really insulting things to the plaintiffs — lawyers all of them.

So if you get bound into a class, be sure to show up. The judge will probably let you express your opinion — especially if it is like his opinion.