I'm playing catch-up again, which explains the date on this post vis-a-vis the date on the opinion I want to mention. In Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc. (pub. ord. May 20, 2011, mod. June 7, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) reviewed a judgment entered following a successful demurrer to a complaint principally challenging the collection of customer zip codes during credit card transactions. The super easy part of the decision was the portion where the Court said, "Based on the holding of Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524 (Pineda), we reverse the judgment and order the trial court to overrule the demurrer to plaintiff's cause of action alleging a violation of the SongBeverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Credit Card Act) (Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq.)." Easy.
That's not the interesting part. That's the part where the plaintiff lucked out. The interesting part comes when the Court discusses the causes of action that didn't pass muster: invasion of common law and constitutional rights to privacy, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Discussing the privacy interest in a residential address, the Court said:
Plaintiff offers no explanation of why we should find a privacy interest in plaintiff's address based on the Supreme Court's conclusion that performing a bodily function under the watchful eye of strangers implicates a privacy interest.
Slip op., at 4-5, referencing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994). Just another arrow in the quiver when arguing about whether a plaintiff is entitled to discovery of contact information for putative class members.