DON’T SLIP ON THE BANANA PEEL! DC AREA MAN TRIES TO GET PAYOUT FOR FAKED SLIP AND FALL

Sounding strangely like a scene straight from the Mario Kart video game, Maurice Owens, a passenger of the DC Metro transit system, has claimed $15,000 in damages related to an alleged slip and fall as a result of a banana peel left in an elevator.  Unfortunately for Mr. Owens, security footage shows him dropping an object on the floor of the elevator and then slipping and falling on it when the doors open.  As a result, the DC transit police have echoed Mr. Owens’ claim by charging him with fraud based on what looks like a faked slip and fall.  Just when you thought banana peels drops were only for the video games it looks like, at least in the case of Mr. Owens, they may be somewhat a reality.

For more information check out:  http://gaithersburg.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/report-man-charged-in-alleged-metro-banana-peel-slipandfall-scam

AMAZON AHEAD AGAIN: BEZOS’ “DRONE DREAM” LEADING THE WAY IN RETAIL INNOVATION

The newest innovation in retail is the concept of delivery by drone, introduced by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos last week.  Bezos has optimistically predicted his dream will become a reality within 5 years and will provide customers with the option to receive their packages within 30 minutes of placing their orders.  While the drone concept, which seems like something straight from a science fiction movie, is an exciting and interesting prospect, it does pose some obvious liability risks that retailers will have to assess and mitigate.  According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, there are environmental factors and potential risks to people and property on the ground that must be taken into account before the drone project goes live.  First, the drones will likely require FAA and potentially EPA approval, both of which can be lengthy processes.  Secondly, risk of trespass, property damage and attractive nuisance claims may exist.  For example, it has likely not been addressed by many courts whether a drone delivering your neighbor’s packages by flying over your yard may be a trespass on your property, the Wall Street Journal notes.  Regarding obvious questions and concerns for safety, and Amazon spokeswoman stated “Safety will be our top priority, and our vehicles will be built with multiple redundancies and designed to commercial aviation standards.”  Amazon has several years to work out the kinks of what has been dubbed “the drone dream” and in the process it is likely some of these legal and safety risks may be addressed.  For more information check out:

Amazon’s Drone Delivery Idea Faces Hurdles-Greg Bensinger- Wall Street Journalhttp://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/12/02/amazons-drone-delivery-idea-faces-hurdles/

Amazon’s Drone Dreams and the Future of Retail – Derek Thompson – The Atlantichttp://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/amazons-drone-dreams-and-the-future-of-retail/281972/

BANKS ARE FIGHTING BACK: RETAILERS RISK LITIGATION FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT CARD INFORMATION

Recent class action lawsuits against MAPCO Express, a convenience store chain, and Schnuck Markets, Inc., a St. Louis-based grocery store chain, illustrate a growing trend in lawsuits against retailers for failure to adequately protect consumer credit card information.  In the case of MAPCO Express, according to a press release issued by the company on May 6, 2013, hackers used malware to access its payment card processing systems throughout periods in March and April, 2013.  All 377 of the MAPCO Express convenience stores are said to have possibly been affected.  Three class action suits were commenced in the wake of the security breach, alleging millions in damages.  Schnuck Markets is also in litigation as a result of its network being attached by a computer code designed to secure payment card details. These lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers but it is expected that banks may soon join the mix as well to recover the substantial costs in remedying fraudulent transactions for their customers.  Banks feel retailers are not doing enough to protect cardholder information, according to one recent blog post found on BankSecurityInfo.com.  (http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/interviews/more-litigation-against-retailers-expected-i-2009 ).

The industry standard for data security appears to be the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (“PCI”) set forth by the Security Standards Council.  According to the Security Standards Council’s website, the PCI provides a framework for creating a data security process to prevent and detect incidents.  In order to participate in the PCI program, the Security Standards Council requires a fee of $3,500, which gets you the minimum participation.  The fees only increase from there, quickly totaling in the tens of thousands for added certifications and encryption programs.

For more information about the PCI and the Security Standards Council go tohttp://www.pcisecuritystandards.org.

For information regarding the MAPCO Express or Schnuck’s Market lawsuits, visit:

http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/schnucks-sued-over-malware-attack-a-5685/op-1

http://www.csnews.com/top-story-in_the_courts-more_class_action_suits_brought_against_mapco_over_hacking-64046.html

JCPENNEY FIGHTS TEXT MESSAGE-ABUSE CASE IN PENNSYLVANIA

In a case against JCPenney pending in federal District Court in Pennsylvania, the court ruled that retailer telephone systems that have the ability to automatically dial and send text messages violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”).  The Act prohibits the use of telephone systems that use automated dialers to randomly dial telephone numbers, except for emergency purposes.  U.S. District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez opining that the Act states an automatic telephone dialing system “need not actually store, produce or call randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers.  It need only have the capacity to do it.”  This decision stands to expose retailers to potential liability if their telephone equipment has thecapacity to randomly or sequentially dial telephone numbers, regardless of whether such a feature is actually used.  In this case, the customer actually gave her cell phone number to JCPenney and agreed to be contacted by JCPenney at that number.  Still, the court allowed the case to survive JCPenney’s motion to dismiss based on the Act.

Other retailers like Papa Johns and WalMart has been similarly subjected to litigation surrounding their use of customer telephone numbers, however, in those cases the issue was whether the customer gave knowing consent to the use of his or her telephone number and whether that consent extended to text messages; not whether their telephone systems violated the Act.

For more information, visit:

http://www.fierceretail.com/story/judge-refuses-dismiss-text-message-abuse-case-against-jcpenney/2013-06-17

RETAILER COLLECTION OF CUSTOMER ZIP CODES BANNED IN MASSACHUSETTS

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently determined customer zip codes are “personal identification information” and that retailers are prohibited from collecting this information during credit card transactions.  Retailers collecting customer zip codes and selling the information or using the information to send unsolicited marketing materials are particularly vulnerable.  The class action lawsuit before the Massachusetts Supreme Court was against Michaels Stores, Inc. (“Michaels”).  The plaintiff (and other class members) alleged Michaels used her name and zip code to find her address and telephone number and sent unsolicited marketing materials.  Massachusetts law prohibits retailers from collecting any “personal identification information” in credit card transactions beyond that which is required by the credit card issuer. (See Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 93, Sec. 105(a)).  The court found that the purpose of the law is to protect against invasion into consumer privacy by merchants and operates to bar retailers from collecting personal identification information, which now includes zip codes.

This decision has already led to lawsuits against Williams Sonoma and Restoration Hardware in Massachusetts.  The Supreme Court of California similarly held in 2011 that retailers are barred from collecting customer zip codes in credit card transactions.  For more information about California’s law visit:http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/11/business/la-fi-0211-privacy-20110211.