             23.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and as a class action, pursuant to  the provisions of Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class  defined as:  All persons whose ZIP codes were collected and recorded at any J. Crew Massachusetts  retail location while making a Credit Card purchase from June 20, 2009 through the  present (the “Class”).   (Unjust Enrichment)   (Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices   G. L., c. 93A, §§ 2 and 9)   11.  J. Crew has sixteen retail locations in Massachusetts, three of which are factory  outlets and the remainder of which are traditional retail stores.     12.   J. Crew collects ZIP codes from customers when they make purchases with Credit  Cards at its retail store locations.  When a customer makes a purchase with a Credit Card, store  employees ask the customer for his or her ZIP code at the register, and the employees then record  that information on the credit card transaction form located on the register as part of the Credit  Card transaction.  J. Crew has engaged in this practice throughout the Class Period.   13.  The ZIP code information that J. Crew collects from Plaintiff and Class members  is neither required by the Credit Card issuers nor necessary in order to complete the credit card  transactions at the retail locations.     14.  J. Crew does not collect, record, and use the customers’ (including Plaintiff’s and  Class members’) ZIP code information in order to verify the customer’s identity or for any other  legitimate purpose in connection with the Credit Card transaction.  Rather, J. Crew uses this  information for its own marketing and promotional purposes.  Possession of the consumer’s ZIP  code information, together with the customer’s name, enables Defendant to identify the  customer’s address and/or telephone number through the use of publicly available databases.   15.  J. Crew uses the ZIP code information it collects from customers (including  Plaintiff and Class members) and the addresses and other information it then obtains, to send  unsolicited marketing and promotional materials, or “junk mail,” to customers, including  Plaintiff and Class members.     17.  Plaintiff and Class members have suffered an injury as a result of Defendant’s  unlawful conduct by receiving unsolicited marketing and promotional materials, or “junk mail,”  from Defendant.  Plaintiff and Class members have also suffered an injury as a result of  Defendant’s misappropriation of their ZIP codes and other personal identification information for  use in its marketing and promotional efforts and other improper and unlawful purposes, from  which Defendant earns a profit and obtains other benefits.  Plaintiff and Class members’ personal  identification information has commercial value, which is demonstrated by, among other things,  the profit or other economic benefit Defendant obtains from the use of that information.     18.  Plaintiff’s and Class members’ damages as a result of this unlawful conduct  include the invasion or breach of their privacy from the collection of their personal identification  information and the profit or other economic benefit obtained by Defendant from the use of that  information.     19.  Plaintiff made at least two Credit Card purchases at J. Crew retail locations during  the Class Period, on or about August 18, 2011 and on or about June 27, 2012.  These purchases  were made at the J. Crew women’s shop at Copley Place in Boston, Massachusetts, and Plaintiff  made these purchases using her Sovereign Bank debit card.     21.  After Plaintiff provided her ZIP code as discussed above, J. Crew began sending  Plaintiff unsolicited marketing and promotional materials, or junk mail. Prior to having provided  her ZIP code to J. Crew, Plaintiff had not received any junk mail from J. Crew, nor had she  requested or consented to the receipt of any such materials.     22.   Plaintiff’s Credit Card issuer does not require a purchaser’s ZIP code in order to  complete a credit card transaction.    V.  24.  Excluded from the Class are Defendant 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.  Plaintiff  reserves the right to modify or amend the Class definition, as appropriate.   25.  Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for classwide treatment is appropriate because  Plaintiff can prove the elements of her claims on a classwide basis using the same evidence as  would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.   27.  Commonality and Predominance – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and 23(b).  This action  involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions affecting  only individual Class members. All Class members were subject to the same business practice  complained of, the collection and recording of their ZIP codes in connection with Credit Card  purchases.  Furthermore, common questions of law and fact, include, but are not limited to:  a.  Whether Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein violates Massachusetts law,  including the provisions of c. 93, § 105;  b.  Whether Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein constitutes unfair and deceptive  acts or practices in violation of c. 93A, § 2;  c.  Whether Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by Defendant’s unfair and  deceptive acts or practices;   d.  Whether Defendant’s violation of c. 93A, § 2 was willful and knowing;   e.  Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to damages and if so, in what   amount;   f.  Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of the conduct   complained of herein;  g.  Whether Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to restitution  and, if so, in what amount; and    h.  Whether Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to equitable   relief, including but not limited to injunctive or declaratory relief.   29.  Adequacy of Representation – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).  Plaintiff is an adequate  Class representative because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the other members  of the Class she seeks to represent; she has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  action litigation; and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously.  The Class’s interests  will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel.   30.  Superiority – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).  A class action is superior to any other  available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy, and no unusual  difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.  The damages or  other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are relatively  small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their  claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable for Class members to individually seek  redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct.  Even if the Class members could afford individual  litigation, the court system could not.  Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent  or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court  system.  By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and  provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision  by a single court.  32.  At all relevant times, Defendant was engaged in commerce for purposes of G. L.  c. 93A.   33.  G. L. c. 93A, § 2 provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or  deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared  unlawful.”   G. L. c. 93A, § 9 permits any consumer injured by a violation of c. 93A, § 2 to bring  a civil action, including a class action, for damages and injunctive relief.   34.  By collecting and recording Plaintiff and Class members’ ZIP code information  for its own promotional and marketing purposes when Plaintiff and Class members made Credit  Card purchases at its Massachusetts retail store locations, in violation of c. 93, § 105(a), J. Crew  engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of c. 93A, § 2.   35.  Plaintiff and Class members were injured by Defendant’s conduct as alleged  herein by the receipt of unsolicited promotional and marketing material sent by Defendant, using  the ZIP code and other personal identification information unlawfully collected from Plaintiff  and Class members.   36.  Plaintiff and Class members were also injured as a result of Defendant’s  misappropriation of their commercially valuable personal identification information (including  their ZIP codes and other information obtained by using the ZIP codes) for profit or other  economic benefit.    38.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts or practices, as alleged herein, were and are  willful and knowing violations of c. 93A, § 2, within the meaning of c. 93A, § 9(3).      39.  On March 23, 2013, Plaintiff made a demand for relief, in writing, to Defendant,  as required by G. L. c. 93A, § 9(3).  The demand letter explained in detail the nature of the unfair  and deceptive acts or practices and the injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the Class, as well as  demanding compensation for those injuries and other relief.  Defendant has failed to tender a  reasonable offer of relief in response to Plaintiff’s written demand.     40.  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled  to all remedies available pursuant to c. 93A, §9, including, but not limited to actual damages,  statutory damages (to the extent that they are greater than actual damages), double or treble  damages, disgorgement of Defendant’s profits derived from its unlawful activities, injunctive  relief, attorneys’ fees and other reasonable costs.  41.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as  if set forth at length here.   42.  Plaintiff and the other Class members conferred a benefit upon Defendant, in the  form of the ZIP codes and other personal identification information they provided to Defendant  when concluding Credit Card transactions at Defendant’s retail locations.    44.  Defendant had an appreciation or knowledge of the commercial value of the  personal identification information, including ZIP codes, provided to it by Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class, of the fact that such information was being provided to it without  consideration, and of the benefits it could obtain from the use of that information.    45.  Defendant’s acceptance or retention of these benefits is inequitable under the  circumstances outlined above and entitles Plaintiff and Class members to restitution or such  other compensation as is appropriate in the circumstances.    8.  G. L. c. 93, § 105(a) forbids the collection and recording of personal  identification information in Credit Card transactions:  Section 105 (a) 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.    9.  ZIP codes are within Section 105(a)'s definition of personal identification  information.  Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492, 506 (2013) (“[T]his Court  holds that ZIP code numbers are ‘personal identification information’ under Section  105(a)”).   