10.  On December 23, 2011, Plaintiff shopped and purchased items at a Sur La Table  retail store location in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.   11.  To consummate the purchase, Plaintiff elected to use, and did use, her credit card  as her form of payment.   12.  As a condition of using her credit card, Plaintiff was required by Sur La Table to  enter personal identification information associated with the credit card, including her full and  complete zip code. Sur La Table would not allow Plaintiff to complete her purchase without  supplying such information.    13.  Sur La Table is not required by credit card issuers to require this information from  consumers.   15.  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has determined that a zip code  constitutes personal identification information (“PII”) within the meaning of Mass. Gen Laws ch.  93 § 105(a). See Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 2013 Mass. LEXIS 40 (2013).  Receipt of Unwanted Marketing Materials   16.  Subsequent to Plaintiff’s purchases at Sur La Table – detailed above – Plaintiff  received unwanted marketing materials from Sur La Table via United States Mail.  Consumers Place a High Value on Their PII   17.  At a Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) public workshop in 2001, then- Commissioner Orson Swindle described the value of a consumer’s personal information as  follows:  The use of third party information from public records, information  aggregators and even competitors for marketing has become a major  facilitator of our retail economy. Even [Federal Reserve] Chairman [Alan]  Greenspan suggested here some time ago that it’s something on the order  of the life blood, the free flow of information.1   18.  Though Commissioner’s Swindle’s remarks are more than a decade old, they are  even more relevant today, as consumers’ personal data functions as a “new form of currency”  that supports a $26 billion per year online advertising industry in the United States.2   2.   20.  Recognizing the high value that consumers place on their PII, many companies  now offer consumers an opportunity to sell this information to advertisers and other third parties.  The idea is to give consumers more power and control over the type of information that they  share – and who ultimately receives that information. And by making the transaction transparent,  consumers will make a profit from the surrender of their PII.4 This business has created a new  market for the sale and purchase of this valuable data.5     21.  In fact, consumers not only place a high value on their PII, but also place a high  value on the privacy of this data. Thus, the question is not whether consumers value such  privacy; the question is “how much [consumers] value” that privacy.6     23.  Consumers thus value their personal data highly, and place an economic value on  the privacy of that data. In fact, when consumers were surveyed as to how much they valued  their personal data in terms of its protection against improper access and unauthorized secondary  use – two concerns at issue here – they valued the restriction of improper access to their data at  between $11.33 and $16.58 per website, and prohibiting secondary use to between $7.98 and  $11.68 per website.8    V.  24.  Plaintiff brings Count I, as set forth below, on behalf of herself and as a class  action, pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure on behalf of a class defined as  All persons from whom Sur La Table requested and recorded personal  identification information in conjunction with a credit card transaction  occurring in Massachusetts (the “Class”).  Excluded from the Class are Sur La Table and its subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who  make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and the judge to  whom this case is assigned and any immediate family members thereof   26.  Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the  class are so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members in impracticable. On  information and belief, there are thousands of consumers who have been affected by Sur La  Table’s wrongful conduct. The precise number of the Class members and their addresses is  presently unknown to Plaintiff, but may be ascertained from Sur La Table’s books and records.   Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved  notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, Internet postings,  and/or published notice.   27.  Commonality and Predominance – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2)  and 23(b)(3). This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over  any questions affecting individual Class members, including, without limitation:  a. whether Sur La Table engaged in the conduct as alleged herein;  b. whether Sur La Table’s conduct constitutes violations of Mass. Gen Laws ch.  93 § 105(a) and Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A § 9;  c. whether Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to statutory, or other  forms of damages, and other monetary relief and, if so, in what amount(s); and  d. whether Plaintiff and other Class members are entitled to equitable relief,  including but not limited to injunctive relief and restitution.   28.  Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are  typical of the other Class members’ claims because, among other things, all Class members were  comparably injured through the uniform misconduct described above.   30.  Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).  Sur La Table has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the other  Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief, as  described below, with respect to Class members as a whole.   32.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.    33.  Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 § 105(a) provides:  No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity that  accepts a credit card for a business transaction shall write, cause to be  written or require that a credit card holder write personal identification  information, not required by the credit card issuer, on the credit card  transaction form. Personal identification information shall include, but  shall not be limited to, a credit card holder's address or telephone number.   34.  Sur La Table is a corporation that accepts credit cards for retail transactions.   35.  Through the practices detailed above, Sur La Table has violated, and continues to  violate, Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 § 105.    36.  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93 § 105(c) provides that: “Any violation of the provisions  of this chapter shall be deemed to be an unfair and deceptive trade practice, as defined in section  2 of chapter 93A.”   37.  Accordingly, Sur La Table’s violations of Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 § 105  constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices within the meaning of Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A §   39.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been injured by Sur La Table’s  collection of their zip codes in connection with their credit card transactions and resultant  violations of Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A § 9.   40.  First, Plaintiff and the Class have been injured because they have received  unwanted marketing materials from Sur La Table as a result of having provided their zip codes  when using credit cards at Sur La Table. And second, Plaintiff and the Class have been injured  because Sur La Table misappropriated their economically valuable PII without consideration.   41.  More than 30 days prior to filing suit, Plaintiff made a pre-suit demand pursuant  to Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A § 9(3) (the “93A Demand”), in which Plaintiff sought: class-wide  relief limited to statutory damages of $25 pursuant to Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A § 9, for each  violation of Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 § 105; injunctive relief; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and  costs. Sur La Table did not accept the terms of this demand. A true and correct copy of the  93A Demand is attached hereto as Exhibit A.    42.  Sur La Table’s failure to accept the terms of this demand was made in bad  faith, because Sur La Table has knowledge or reason to know that the practice complained of  does, in fact, violate Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 § 105 and Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A § 9, and that  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to the relief demanded as a matter of law.   43.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to double or treble damages as a  result of Sur La Table’s bad faith violations of Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A § 9.  Sur La Table’s Unlawful Collection of PII   Violation of Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act  Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  