In re Williams-Sonoma Song-Beverly Act Cases
| Citation | 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 385,40 Cal.App.5th 647 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | A154692 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | WILLIAMS-SONOMA SONG-BEVERLY ACT CASES. |
Stonebarger Law, Gene J. Stonebarger, Richard D. Lambert, Folsom; Patterson Law Group, James R. Patterson, Allison H. Goddard, San Diego, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Sheppar, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, P. Craig Cardon, Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Elizabeth S. Barcohana, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.
The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 ( Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq. (the Act)) makes it unlawful for merchants to request or require customers to provide "personal identification information" as a condition to accepting a credit card for payment. In Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1259, 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 ( Harrold ), we held the Act does not prohibit merchants from requesting such information unless the request is made under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe the information is required to complete the transaction.
The trial court decertified a class of plaintiffs who alleged that retailer Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (Williams-Sonoma) violated the Act by requesting their zip codes or email addresses during credit card sales because it found any violation would depend on the circumstances of the specific transaction. The court correctly applied the legal standard stated in Harrold and its ruling is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
The following evidence is described most favorably to respondent in accord with the standard for substantial evidence review. (See SFPP v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 452, 461-462, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 ; see also Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1022, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 ( Brinker ).) Williams -Sonoma is the parent corporation to Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. and operates the stores Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn, Pottery Barn Kids, and West Elm.
In 1991 Williams-Sonoma began requesting zip codes during point-of-sale transactions in California. In 2004 it began requesting email addresses. From 2007 to February 2011, Williams-Sonoma had general procedures in place for requesting zip codes and e-mail addresses. Zip codes and emails were collected from customers regardless of the form of tender used for payment. After the purchases were scanned and totaled, the point of sale system prompted the sales clerk to ask for the customer's zip code. If the customer provided one, it was entered into the system. If the customer declined, the sales clerk bypassed the prompt by entering a series of nines or other numbers or selecting a "receipt only" option. The sales clerk then asked the customer for the form of payment.
Notwithstanding these general procedures, Williams-Sonoma's actual practices for soliciting and recording customers' personal identification information varied between individual transactions. Employees had discretion not to solicit a customer's zip code or email at all. They would sometimes decline to request it when, for example, the store was particularly busy, or the customer appeared to be in a hurry or a bad mood. If asked, employees would explain the information was not required and that it was only being collected for marketing purposes, and sometimes they would tell their customers as much without being asked. Williams-Sonoma neither rewards its employees for collecting personal identification information nor disciplines them if they do not.
Williams-Sonoma required each of its California stores to post signs at the cash registers stating that zip codes and email addresses were requested solely for marketing purposes and were not required. The signs were "no more than a foot, foot and a half" from customers, "very easy to read," and treated as "very important reference material" "not to be obstructed." In addition, 3" x 5" stickers to the same effect were displayed on the back (the customer-facing side) of each register.
In 2013, after legal proceedings not relevant here, plaintiffs Amanda Georgino, Jessica Pineda and others filed this putative class action. Their complaint alleges Williams-Sonoma violated the Act between 2007 and 2011 by requesting and recording zip codes and/or email addresses from customers who used credit cards for in-store purchases.
In 2014 plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all persons from whom Williams-Sonoma had requested and recorded such information in conjunction with a credit card purchase. They argued the Act prohibits all requests for personal identifying information during credit card sales, and therefore that it is violated whether or not the customer learns from signage or a sales assistant that the information is not required. Thus, under plaintiffs' theory, liability under the Act does not depend on the circumstances of any particular transaction. In opposition to class certification, Williams-Sonoma argued that the Act is violated only if the request for personal identification information is made under circumstances that reasonably suggest the information is required for the transaction.
Relying on plaintiffs' theory for purposes of the motion (see Hall v. Rite Aid Corp. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 278, 294, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 504 ), the court certified the class. It noted, however, that decertification could be appropriate if "either through a motion or other means such as a bifurcated bench trial, the court determines that defendants are correct on what it takes to prove a violation of the Song-Beverly Act."
And so, it went. Following briefing and argument on the question, the court essentially accepted Williams-Sonoma's interpretation of the Act. "[F]or the Song-Beverly Act, liability depends on requesting or requiring PII [personal identification information] as a condition to accepting credit card payment. " The standard "must focus on whether a reasonable consumer would perceive a request for PII to be a condition of paying by credit card," so the inquiry requires review of the circumstances of the actual request. In short, the court rejected plaintiffs' theory of liability and confirmed that "the circumstances of the request matter."
Based on that ruling, Williams-Sonoma moved to decertify the class. It argued its liability would depend on transaction-specific facts to determine whether any given customer provided personal identification information under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe it was necessary to complete the transaction. The court granted the motion. It ruled:
The court also concluded plaintiffs had not presented a trial plan to manage the individual liability issues, as they had confirmed they had "no intention of addressing circumstances" such as whether customers saw the signs or stickers or were verbally told that personal identification information was voluntary and not a condition of the sale. The court rejected plaintiffs' proposal to verify the individual class members' right to recover through a posttrial claims process because, while claim forms may appropriately be employed to establish individual damages once liability is established, "it doesn't follow that liability can be established by a claim form, which after all is hearsay and not subject to cross examination." Moreover, plaintiffs' proposed form failed to address "the conditions of the transaction" necessary to establish liability for any specific claim.
Plaintiffs filed this timely appeal from the decertification order.
Plaintiffs contend the court erred when it decertified the class on the basis of what they call a " ‘voluntary’ " defense to liability under the Act. Relying principally on language in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 531, 246 P.3d 612 ( Pineda ) and Florez v. Linens 'N Things, Inc. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 447, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 465 ( Florez ), plaintiffs assert the Act prohibits any request for personal identification information from customers during a credit card sale, regardless of whether a reasonable customer would believe the information was required to complete the transaction. In plaintiffs' view, any other interpretation would allow retailers to defeat the Act by claiming their customers voluntarily furnished personal identification information.
Williams-Sonoma responds that plaintiffs misstate the trial court's ruling. The court did not, as plaintiffs suggest, invent a standard of liability dependent upon whether the customer provides the information voluntarily. Rather, it found that although a retailer "may solicit a customer's zip code during a credit card transaction if that information is provided voluntarily," it "may not request or require the provision of a zip code as a condition of accepting a credit card payment. " (Italics added.) Agreeing with both parties' position that liability requires the application of an objective, "reasonable consumer" standard, the court reasoned that it does not matter whether a customer subjectively believed the information was required, but, rather, what a reasonable customer would believe under the circumstances of the particular transaction. Thus, the key issue on the motion to decertify the class was whether plaintiffs could prove on a class-wide basis that requests for zip codes and email addresses were made "in a manner such that a reasonable consumer might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hooper
... ... violated the Loveton order without good cause or substantial justification in 18 of the 29 cases. In August 2017, the trial court in Czirban issued its final decision imposing sanctions against ... ...
-
Huang v. Twitter, Inc.
...subjective guidelines triggering individualized inquiries, not a uniform system of assessing candidates. (See Williams-Sonoma Song-Beverly Act Cases (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 647 [no commonality where employees had discretion to request certain information and did not always do so].) Koval, sup......