FACTA credit card receipt litigation is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The CEO of Easton Bank and Trust, Mike Menzies, said the new standardized approach in how the banks count assets along with state regulation policies have a distinct impact on the loans they can lend to small businesses….

Menzies said that regulations associated with the federal Credit Card Card Act, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and Dodd-Frank Act have have placed large burdens on banks, forcing them to devote more human resources toward regulatory compliance than is necessary.

“I would say that seven years ago, I would spend 20 to 25% of my time as CEO of a small company dealing with regulatory issues,” said Menzies. “I spend no less than 50 or 60 percent of my time today dealing with regulatory issues. It’s unbelievable.”

Small-bank CEO: I spend 50-60% of my time dealing with regulatory issues is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

March 19 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Welcome Orlando Sentinel readers is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Grimes v. Raves Motion Pictures FACTA decision reversed is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

October 15 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The exception to “all publicity is good publicity” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Meanwhile, Judge William M. Acker, Jr., of the Northern District of Alabama, had a series of summary judgment motions in four FACTA cases before him. He rejected the idea that class certification was inherently improper when the resulting statutory damages would bankrupt the defendant (an issue I discussed in my Liability Outlook on the subject), but held that the $100-$1000 statutory damages, without a showing of harm, were necessarily punitive in nature, and thus constitutionally impermissible under State Farm v. Campbell:

FACTA makes no distinction between the possibility of awarding punitive damages after actual damages have been proven, and after no actual damage whatsoever has been sustained, much less proven. The imposition of punitive damages without any actual damages whatsoever, is a stranger to the Supreme Court which recently said in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 426, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 1524 (2003):

[C]ourts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and to the general damages recovered. (emphasis supplied).

To impose punitive damages without the suffering of any harm is inherently disproportionate. Nominal damages can, of course, represent or substitute for actual damages. Nominal damages may or may not open the door to an award of proportionate punitive damages, but an award of damages that are by statute expressly not compensatory in nature, cannot open that door.

A second ground for the decision, that the phrase “not less than $100 and not more than $1,000″ is unconstitutionally void for vagueness, seems a considerably weaker argument, though one sympathizes with Judge Acker’s concern that the results of such language before a jury will be arbitrary because different juries faced with the same facts will come to different and equally reasonable conclusions. Still “$100-$1000” is considerably less arbitrary than, say, non-economic damages. The decision is Grimes v. Raves Motion Pictures Birmingham, LLC, __ F.Supp. 2d ___, No. 07-AR-1397-S (N.D. Ala. May 28, 2008). The decision, if upheld on inevitable appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, has implications for a number of consumer fraud statutes.

Breaking and exclusive: FACTA held unconstitutional is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“In 22 years, I have never had a plaintiff sit across the table from me and say, ‘I have no damages. My identity hasn’t been stolen. I’m just bringing this lawsuit because I can,'” said Block of the Miami office of Jackson Lewis. “There’s something inherently wrong with a lawsuit where the plaintiff has no injury.”

(Tresa Baldas, “Landslide of Suits Over Data on Receipts”, National Law Journal, Apr. 7). “Receipts” needn’t actually be printed out in a shop or public place to trigger the act; those that flash on a customer’s home computer screen count too. (WSJ law blog, Apr. 8). Our earlier coverage: May 10 and Oct. 31, 2007, and Apr. 4 of this year.

FACTA receipts, restaurant coupons and “annihilating” damages is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

FACTA: “I have no damages. I’m just bringing this lawsuit because I can.” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system