15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)   15.  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.   16.  One FACTA provision was specifically designed to thwart identity thieves’  ability to gain sensitive information regarding a consumer’s credit or debit account from a receipt  which the consumer discarded or lost.  Codified in 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g), this provision provides:  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that  accepts credit 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 sale or transaction.  (“Receipt Provision”).   18.  Thus, FACTA gave companies a generous three-year window within which to  comply with the Receipt Provision.   19.  Notwithstanding the fact that it had years to comply, Defendant continues to issue  receipts at the point of sale or transaction that contain more than 5 digits from the credit card or  account number or the expiration date, in direct violation of the Receipt Provision.   20.  Even prior to FACTA’s enactment, the payment card industry began requiring  merchants to comply with requirements that were at least as rigorous as FACTA’s requirements.   For example, upon information and belief, (i) effective July 1, 2003 for new machines, Visa  instituted a receipt truncation policy limiting the information on receipts given to cardholders to  the last four digits of the account number, and requiring the expiration date to be eliminated  altogether, and (ii) effective July 1, 2006 for existing machines, it mandated the same truncation  requirements.  Upon information and belief, these requirements were (and continue to be) set  forth in a manual entitled Rules For Visa Merchants, Card Acceptance and Chargeback  Management Guide.    21.  Defendant accepts Visa cards and is a party to a contract requiring compliance  with the these truncation requirements, and thus upon information and belief had knowledge of  23.  Similarly, Heartland Payments Systems, Inc. (“Heartland”) provides credit card  processing services similar to Global’s, but on a smaller scale.  In 2003, Heartland disseminated  a pamphlet warning merchants that, in printing credit card receipts, they would soon be required  to (i) truncate all but the last four digits of the account numbers, and (ii) eliminate the expiration  date.  Thereafter, in 2006, Heartland disseminated another pamphlet warning merchants that the  cardholder’s receipt should include only the last 4 or 5 digits of the account number, and should  not include the card’s expiration date.   24.  Thus, upon information and belief, Defendant further had knowledge of FACTA  and the Receipt Provision through publications and other communications from payment system  vendors.   25.  Likewise, many grocer and retail trade associations apprised their merchant  members of FACTA’s account number truncation and expiration date elimination requirements.   There was, therefore, no shortage of public disclosure on the matter.   26.  Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of FACTA and the  Receipt Provision through trade association notifications.   28.  In anticipation of the December 4, 2006, deadline, many credit card companies,  including, but not limited to, VISA and MasterCard advised companies of the need for  compliance with the Receipt Provision.  Additionally, many credit card companies, such as  VISA and MasterCard, implemented policies well in advance of the effective date to ensure  compliance with the Receipt Provision, by themselves, as well as that of their customers.  For  example, on March 6, 2003, VISA’s CEO, Carl Pascarella, held a press conference on Capitol  Hill with Senators Dianne Feinstein, Judd Gregg, Jon Corzine, and Patrick Leahy and publicly  announced VISA USA’s new truncation policy to protect consumers from identity theft.   29.  The vast majority of persons who print credit or debit card receipts comply with  the Receipt Provision, including the vast majority of grocers in the same area that Defendant  operates that are far, far smaller than Defendants.   48.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as a class action for Defendant’s  violation of section 1681c(g) of the FCRA, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following Class:  All persons in the United States to whom, from two years prior to  the filing of this Complaint, and continuing through resolution of  this  case  (the  “Class  Period”),  Defendant  provided an  electronically printed receipt at the point of sale or transaction on  which Defendant printed or caused to be printed the expiration date  of the person’s credit or debit card.   49.  Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside  over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class;  (c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases of all their  claims for all of their Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents,  and representatives and their family members.   5.  The truncation section of the FCRA was thus designed to combat the rising tide of  identity theft experienced throughout the nation in recent years.  Such a practice, if followed,  reduces an identity thief’s ability to obtain valuable account information relating to a consumer.     50.  The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  Although  the precise number of Class numbers is known only to Defendant, Plaintiffs aver upon  information and belief that the Class numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands.   52.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class, which all arise from the  same operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.   53.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.  Plaintiffs  are committed to vigorously litigating this matter.  Further, Plaintiffs have secured counsel  experienced in handling consumer class actions.  Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any  interests that might cause them to not vigorously pursue this claim.   54.  This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or  varying adjudications, with respect to individual members, which would establish incomplete  standards of conduct for the parties opposing the Class, as well as a practical matter be  dispositive of interests of other members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair  or impede their ability to protect their interests.   55.  Defendant has acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the  Class, thereby making appropriate final injunction relief or corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the Class as a whole.   56.  Whether Defendant failed to comply with the Receipt Provision as detailed by 15  U.S.C. § 1681c(g) can be easily determined by a review of Defendant’s policies and ministerial  inspection of Defendant’s business records.   58.  Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth  at length herein.   59.  During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of the Class were provided  receipts by Defendant that failed to comply with the Receipt Provision.   6.  Despite the simple steps necessary to comply, and despite abundant notice,  Defendant has simply chosen to ignore complying with the FCRA and FACTA.  As such,  consumers who purchase goods from Defendant do not receive the full benefits of section  1681c(g) and are uniformly burdened with an elevated risk of identity theft.   60.  The Receipt Provision, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681c(g)(1), states as follows:  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 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 sale or transaction.  This section applies to any “device that electronically prints receipts” (subsequently referred to  in this complaint as “device” or “devices”) for point of sale transactions. 15 U.S.C.A. §  1681c(g)(3).   61.  Defendant employs the use of such devices at its retail locations.   62.  During the Class Period, at the retail locations of Defendant, Plaintiffs and  members of the Class were provided with receipts by Defendant that failed to comply with the  Receipt Provision.   63.  Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such information and  belief allege, that Defendant was aware, before the Class Period began, of both the Receipt  Provision as well as the need to comply with such provision.   65.  Upon information and belief, Defendant was required by VISA, MasterCard,  and/or other credit card companies to comply with the Receipt Provision.   66.  Notwithstanding the significant amount of time 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; the repeated number of reminders of  FACTA and its  accompanying provisions; the requirements imposed by VISA, MasterCard, and other credit card  companies; compliance with the Receipt Provision by Defendant in other operations; and, the  compliance by the majority of Defendant’s peers and competitors, Defendant knowingly,  willfully, intentionally, and recklessly violated and continues to violate the FCRA and the  Receipt Provision.    67.   Defendant’s violations of the FCRA expose Plaintiffs and members of the Class  to an elevated risk of identity theft.   68.  As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the FCRA and FACTA, Defendant  is liable to Plaintiffs and members of the Class for statutory and punitive damages pursuant to 15  U.S.C.  § 1681n.  7.  A plaintiff need not demonstrate that he or she was a victim of identity theft to  prevail on a claim for statutory damages under the FCRA upon a showing that a defendant  willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g).   8.  The FCRA provides that any “person who willfully fails to comply with any  requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that  consumer in an amount equal to 1) statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than  $1,000; 2) punitive damages; and, 3) attorney fees and costs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a).  number of opportunities for identity thieves to pick off' key card account information.   