Give a store cashier your ZIP code and you could be in for a barrage of junk mail and sales calls.
The state’s highest court ruled that Michaels stores broke the state’s consumer protection law by asking credit card customers for their ZIP codes. The craft store chain used the information to look up customers’ home addresses and phone numbers in order to send them unsolicited sales pitches.
“It’s a good, strong finding for consumers,” said Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for the consumer group MassPIRG. “It’s right on the mark.”
A customer filed a class-action lawsuit against Michaels in 2011 after cashiers asked for her ZIP code at the Everett store. The plaintiff, Melissa Tyler, began receiving unsolicited phone and mail pitches from Irving, Texas-based Michaels.
“Data mining is one of the more pernicious practices in which retailers engage, and retailers like Michaels use whatever means necessary to collect customer data so that they can better market their wares,” Tyler’s attorney, Greg Blankenship, wrote in the complaint.
Massachusetts consumer protection law forbids companies from requesting personal information such as addresses and telephone numbers from credit card users unless the information is required for shipping purposes, or under the retailer’s credit card agreement.
Although the law does not mention ZIP codes specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court said they are personal information, given that Michaels was able to use them in conjunction with commercial databases to identify individual customers.
In the ruling, the SJC also said the Legislature’s intent when updating the law in 1991 was to protect credit card users from becoming recipients of unwanted solicitations from merchants. Michaels’ attorneys had argued that the law was intended to prevent identity theft.
MassPIRG’s Cummings said many shoppers have complained about retailers asking for phone numbers and email addresses at the checkout.
“The retailers don’t make it easy to let consumers know they don’t have to give out that information,” she said.
The court said Tyler was entitled to the minimum damages of $25 for violation of privacy.
Michaels did not respond to requests for comment.