## Facts

- David Krescent bought electronically downloadable media from Apple’s iTunes Store using a credit card.
- During the online checkout process, Apple required Krescent to provide personal information (including address and telephone number) as a condition of accepting his credit card.
- Krescent filed a putative class action alleging this practice violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08, which restricts requesting or recording “personal identification information” in connection with credit-card transactions.
- Apple demurred, arguing § 1747.08 does not apply to online purchases of electronically downloadable products; the trial court overruled the demurrer.
- Apple sought writ relief; after denial in the Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court granted review on Apple’s petition for writ of mandate.

## Issues

1. Whether Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08 prohibits an online retailer from requesting or requiring personal identification information as a condition of accepting a credit card for an electronically downloadable product.
2. Whether the statute’s text, structure, purpose, and history support extending the Act—enacted for in-person retail practices—to card-not-present online download transactions.
3. Whether interpreting the statute to bar collection of basic identifying information in online downloads would improperly impede fraud-prevention measures integral to online credit-card payments.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held § 1747.08 does not apply to online purchases of electronically downloadable products.
- The court concluded the complaint failed to state a cause of action under the statute.
- The court directed issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its order overruling Apple’s demurrer and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory text is not decisive, courts interpret the statute in context, considering structure, purpose, and legislative history.
- The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act targets retailer practices that misuse personal data and mislead consumers into believing disclosure is required to complete a credit-card purchase, while also accommodating legitimate transactional and anti-fraud needs.
- Precedent applying § 1747.08 to in-person retail transactions does not necessarily control materially different online, card-not-present transactions, where merchants cannot physically inspect the card or verify identity through face-to-face methods.
- Courts avoid interpretations that would substantially disrupt established payment-system fraud controls absent clear legislative direction, particularly where a legacy statute did not contemplate later-developed commerce modalities.

## Conclusion

The court limited Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08 to contexts consistent with its in-person retail framework and held that requiring address and phone information for online credit-card purchases of downloadable products does not violate the statute, warranting writ relief and sustaining Apple’s demurrer.


Apple Inc. v. Superior Ct., 56 Cal. 4th 128 (Cal. 2013)