10.  According to data from the Federal Trade Commission's 2012  Consumer Sentinel Network report, Florida ranks No. 1 for identity theft among  the 50 states, with 361.3 complaints per 100,000 people. That's 86 percent more  than Georgia, which ranks a distant second. Also, nine of the top 10 metro areas  for identity theft are in Florida, according to the report. First is the Miami area with  645.4 complaints per 100,000 people.1   11.  So problematic is the crime of identity theft that the three main credit  reporting agencies, Experian, Equifax, and Transunion, joined to set-up a free  website (<http://www.annualcreditreport.com>) in order to comply with FACTA  requirements and to provide the citizens of this country with a means of monitoring  their credit reports for possible identity theft.  B.  Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations   13.  At all times relevant herein, Defendant was acting by and though its  agents, servants and/or employees, each of which were acting within the course  and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and  control of the Defendant.   14.  At all times relevant herein, the conduct of the Defendant, as well as  that of its agents, servants and/or employees, was in willful and reckless disregard  for federal law and the rights of the Plaintiff.   15.  It is Defendant’s policy and procedure to issue an electronically  printed receipt to individuals at the point of sale – i.e., immediately upon receipt of  credit card payment.   16.  Consistent with Defendant’s policy and procedure, Defendant  knowingly and intentionally includes credit and debit card expiration dates on its  electronically printed receipts.   17.  Along with the expiration date, the receipt generated at the point of  sale also displays certain other sensitive information, including the consumer’s  name, address, telephone number, type of credit card, and date of service.    19.  The fact that Defendant chose to comply with the credit card number  redaction requirement is highly suggestive of the fact that LabCorp had knowledge  of the statute’s requirements. Moreover, unlike some more nebulous FACTA- related issues (e.g., whether the statute covers “membership cards” – See Hammer  v. Sam’s East, Inc., No. 13-3724 (8th Cir., June 5, 2014)), the requirement to redact  expiration dates could not be any more straightforward - the statute expressly  prohibits display of a credit card’s expiration date, supra.   20.  Upon information and belief, the FTC specifically alerted businesses  about the truncation requirement; major credit card issuers (e.g., American  Express) also explicitly instructed merchants on the requirements of FACTA, and;  Defendant therefore would have received multiple notices regarding the truncation  requirement and the importance of identity theft.    22.  Notwithstanding the fact that it has had years to comply, Defendant  continues to issue receipts at points of sale transaction, which contain the  expiration date of credit or debit cards, in direct violation of the Receipt Provision  of the FCRA.   23.  Notwithstanding the Receipt Provision, Defendant continues to  deliberately, willfully, intentionally, and/or recklessly violate FACTA by issuing  receipts which to not comply with the FCRA.   24.  Notwithstanding the Receipt Provision and the fact that it had years to  comply, Defendant continues to act in conscious disregard for the rights of others.   25.  In sum, Defendant knowingly and intentionally violated the Receipt  Provision of FACTA, in conscious disregard for the rights and privacy concerns of  others, and in doing so, committed willful violation of the FACTA provision of the  FCRA. See Reynolds v. Hartford Financial Services Grp., 435 F.3d 1081, 1098  (9th Cir. 2006).  V.  27.  The named Plaintiff falls within the Class definition and is a member  of the class. Excluded from the Class are Defendant and any entities in which  Defendant has a controlling interest, Defendant’s agents and employees, Plaintiff’s  attorneys and their employees, the Judge to whom this action is assigned and any  member of the Judge’s staff and immediate family, and claims for personal injury,  wrongful death, and/or emotional distress.  A.  Certification Under Either Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) is Proper.   28.  The members of the class are capable of being described without  managerial or administrative problems. The members of the class are readily  ascertainable from the information and records in the possession, custody or  control of Defendant.   30.  There are common questions of law and fact which predominate over  any questions affecting only the individual members of the classes. The wrongs  alleged against Defendants are statutory in nature and common to each and every  member of the respective classes.    31.  This suit seeks only statutory damages and injunctive relief on behalf  of the Class and it expressly is not intended to request any recovery for personal  injury and claims related thereto.  Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the Class  definition to seek recovery on behalf of additional persons as warranted as facts are  learned in further investigation and discovery.   33.  As a person that utilized Defendant’s laboratory services and received  a receipt upon which the expiration date of his card was printed, Plaintiff is  asserting claims that are typical of the proposed Class. Plaintiff will fairly and  adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class in that Plaintiff has no  interests antagonistic to any member of the Class.   34.  The principal question is whether the Defendant violated section  1681c(g) of the FCRA by providing class members with electronically printed  receipts in violation of the Receipt Provision. The secondary question is whether it  is Defendant's policy and practice to provide such electronically printed receipts to  consumers that make payment using a credit or debit card, despite the advice of  one of the nation’s largest law firms, and whether this policy and practice  constitutes willful noncompliance of the FCRA.   36.  Defendant’s defenses are and will be typical of and the same or  identical for each of the members of the class and will be based on the same legal  and factual theories. There are no unique defenses to any of the class members’  claims.   37.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Class-wide damages are essential to induce  Defendant to comply with federal and California law.  The interest of Class  members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims against  Defendant is small. The maximum statutory damages in an individual action for a  violation of this statute is minimal.  Management of these claims is likely to  present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class claims.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making  appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect  to the Class as a whole.  39.  This section applies to any “device that electronically prints receipts”  (hereafter “Devices”) for point of sale transactions. 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g)(3).   40.  Defendant employs the use of said Devices for point of sale  transactions at the various locations of Defendant.   41.  On or before the date on which this complaint was filed, Plaintiff and  members of the Class were provided receipt(s) by Defendant that failed to comply  with the Receipt Provision.   42.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was aware, or should  have been aware, of both the Receipt Provision as well as the need to comply with  said provision.   43.  Notwithstanding the three year period to prepare for FACTA and its  accompanying provisions, including but not limited to the Receipt Provision;  knowledge of the Receipt Provision and FACTA as a whole; and the actions of  Defendant’s peers and competitors, Defendant knowingly, willfully, intentionally,  and/or recklessly violated and continues to violate the FCRA and the Receipt  Provision.   6.  In 2003, FACTA was enacted by Congress, and signed into law by  President George W. Bush. One of FACTA’s primary purposes was to amend the  FCRA through the addition of identity theft protections for consumers.   7.  One such FACTA provision was specifically designed to thwart  identity thieves’ ability to gain sensitive information regarding a consumer’s credit  or bank account from a receipt provided to the consumer during a point of sale  transaction, which, through any number of ways, could fall into the hands of  someone other than the consumer.   9.  After enactment, FACTA provided three years in which to comply  with its requirements, mandating full compliance with its provisions no later than  December 4, 2006.   A.  Statutory Background  