136 PRYOR STREET, ROOM C-103, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 SUMMONS 1- .1  \A}'\1 I urns aidaid CL(s)(..-H-A )c.se 2017CV288702 Tctaney,cin Lx,-'1,-)aW oP +hernsei ,es ) n i"i(i(  (::;01Ar)O,Kiy 5)11,{(1-17-ri Plaintiff, ) vs. ) S-Dve' o TentneSS _,Inc. (co:20 ;?„-6,1 5, Fred 15 a,tpcv- 0  )0Y, ) Prey's Phkdm(L));  DcFS I   ) -6-vv)ttai w Defendant Ivd,s  we,  )) ) ) 15.  Plaintiffs bring this Class action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-23.  16.  The Class which Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as: All consumers to whom Defendants, within two years from the date of filing this action, provided an electronically printed receipt at the point of a sale or transaction at any of Defendants' physical store locations in the United States, on which receipt Defendants printed the expiration date of the consumer's debit card (the "Class" ).1  18.  Numerositv: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members in one action would be impracticable. The disposition of their claims through this Class action will benefit both the parties and this Court.  19.  Plaintiffs believe and thereon allege that there are, at a minimum, thousands (i.e., two thousand or more) of members that comprise the Class.  20.  The exact size of the Class is ascertainable through Defendants' records, including but not limited to Defendants' sales and transaction records.  21.  Members of the Class may be notified of the pendency of this action by techniques and forms commonly used in Class actions, such as by published notice, e-mail notice, website notice, and/or first-Class mail, or combinations thereof, or by other methods suitable to this Class and deemed necessary and or appropriate by the Court.  22.  Typicality: Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the entire Class. The claims of Plaintiffs and members of the Class are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same unlawful conduct.  24. Common Questions of Fact and Law: There are a well-defined community of interest and common questions of fact and law affecting the members of the Class.  25.  The questions of fact and law common to the Class predominate over questions which may affect individual members and include the following: (a)  Whether Defendants' conduct of providing Plaintiffs and the Class with sales or transaction receipts whereon Defendants printed the expiration date of the card violated the FACTA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.; (b)  Whether Defendants' conduct was willful; and (c)  Whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, and or attorney fees for Defendants' acts and conduct.  27.  Consistency Of Adjudications: A class action would promote the consistency of adjudicating the rights of Class members. In contrast, the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.  29.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in this Complaint.  30.  Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and the Class against Defendants.  31.  Title 15 U.S.C. § 1681 c(g)(1) provides 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 cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction."  33.  Defendants transact business in the United States and accept credit cards and debit cards in the course of transacting business with persons such as Plaintiffs and members of the Class. In transacting such business, Defendants use cash registers and or other machines or devices that electronically print receipts for credit card and debit card transactions.  34.  After December 3, 2006, and within two years from the date of filing this action, Defendants, at the point of a sale or transaction with Plaintiff Lillie Williams, provided Plaintiff Lillie Williams with one or more electronically printed receipts on each of which Defendants printed the expiration date of her debit card and the last four digits of her debit card number.  35.  After December 3, 2006, and within two years from the date of filing this action, Defendants, at the point of a sale or transaction with Plaintiff Cussetta Journey, provided Plaintiff Cussetta Journey with one or more electronically printed receipts on each of which Defendants printed the expiration date of her debit card and the last four digits of her debit card number.  37.  As set forth above, .FACTA was enacted in 2003 and gave merchants who accept credit and or debit cards up to December 4, 2006 to comply with its requirements.  38.  Defendants knew of and were well informed about the law, including specifically FACTA's requirements concerning the truncation of credit and debit card numbers and prohibition on the printing of expiration dates.  39.  For example, but without limitation, on February 22, 2017, FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC. was served with a letter to cease and desist 4.  Nor is Defendants' willful violation of FACTA a trifling matter. In the statement provided during his signing of FACTA in 2003, the President underscored the importance of the legislation in combating rampant identity theft: This bill also confronts the problem of identity theft. A growing number of Americans are victimized by criminals who assume their identities and cause havoc in their financial affairs.  With this legislation, the Federal Government is protecting our citizens by taking the offensive against identity theft.  41.  Other entities, including but not limited to Defendants' payment card processor (also known as the acquirer, merchant bank, or acquiring bank) which processes credit and debit card payments for transactions occurring at Defendants' stores, likewise informed Defendants about FACTA, including its specific requirements concerning the truncation of credit and debit card numbers and prohibition on the printing of expiration dates, and Defendants' need to comply with same.  42.  In addition, many companies such as VISA and MasterCard devised and implemented policies well before the operative date of FACTA's requirements, wherein such policies VISA, MasterCard and others required Defendants (and informed Defendants of the requirements) to truncate credit and debit card numbers and prevent the printing of expiration dates on receipts.  5.  Courts have likewise emphasized the purpose of FACTA. For example, the Ninth Circuit recently emphasized that "[i]n fashioning FACTA, Congress aimed to 'restrict the amount of information available to identity thieves.'" Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708, 718 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 149 Cong. Rec. 26,891 (2003) (statement of Sen. Shelby)).  50.  Defendants have also harmed Plaintiffs and the Class by exposing them to at least an increased risk of identity theft and debit card fraud.  For Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class as against Defendants)  STATE OF GEORGIA LTLLIE WILLIAMS and CUSSETTA  ) JOURNEY, on behalf of themselves and all )) others similarly situated,  )) Plaintiffs,  ) ) cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print . . . the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction" 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1) (emphasis added.) 