Suits: Taco Bell, KFC receipts give too much infoThe Courier-Journal Fast-food chains KFC and Taco Bell failed to comply with a law requiring companies to limit the amount of credit card information they print on customers' receipts, two lawsuits filed earlier this month claim. Both chains are part of Louisville-based Yum! Brands Inc. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Yum acknowledged the lawsuits and said it would "vigorously defend against all claims" in both cases. The suit against KFC Corp. was filed July 11 in U.S. District Court in New Jersey. It claims that Melissa Peraria, a resident of Shamong, N.J., made a purchase in May at a local KFC and the restaurant illegally printed the expiration date of her credit card on the receipt. Citing a congressional act called the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the lawsuit claims retailers may not print more than the last five digits of a person's account number, or the card's expiration date, on a receipt. The law was passed in 2003, but most retailers had until Dec. 2006 to comply. Lawsuits tell only one side of a story. Officials at Yum Brands did not immediately return telephone messages seeking comment. The lawsuit involving Taco Bell was filed July 5 in federal court in Illinois. The plaintiff, Doran Phillips, alleges that a Taco Bell restaurant in Chicago printed the expiration date on Phillips' credit card on a receipt after a June 12 purchase. Attorneys in both cases are seeking class-action status, with damages of up to $1,000 for each affected customer on top of expenses and attorney fees. |
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.
77 West Washington St
Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Map & Directions
Phone: 312-440-0020
Fax: 312-440-4180
Email me
Mother Loses Child Custody and Visitation — Following a lengthy trial to determine the best interests of the children, a mother going through a divorce lost custody of her children to her husband and she was also denied any visitation with her minor children. We were retained after the trial to appeal the decision. We successfully appealed the trial court's decision denying visitation by demonstrating that visitation would not endanger the children's physical, mental, moral or emotional health, and the appellate court ordered the trial court to fashion appropriate visitation. In this matter, we also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether a state court rule violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where the rule precludes the court from exercising its discretion, in the interest of fundamental fairness, to allow an untimely appeal from a court order terminating a parent's liberty interest to the care and custody of her children.
