Can no longer ask for surfer ZIP Code on signups?
 

Looks like you can no longer ask for ZIP codes from surfers when they signup on the join form, at least in California:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110211/...ards_zip_codes

i don't get how gas pumps are exempt ?

online the zip code is used in much the same fashion, how is it any different if they simply don't record zips from cali

I've always scratched my head when I surf a cell phone site like WireFly.com and their first question is "Please give us your zip code, so we can serve you better". Is this the lame-brain method of Geo-IP tracking?

I always give them 90210.

You can still use a zip code for billing verification. You just can't use it for marketing purposes. For gas stations, it's the bank asking for the zip to verify the card.

um this was strange and also good for us :)

well this makes things difficult? American express validates your zip code against your card when you process the transaction.

I guess this would explain why I've been seeing a ton of signups coming in without ZIP codes lately?

Any idea what state consumer-protection law zip code verification violates?

:thumbsup

What they have gotten rid of is fucking Barnes and Nobles asking you for your zip before they even begin the transaction. These companies are just using this information for their own marketing research. Ross and TJ Max also do this as well.

Chevron still asks me for my zip code because it's using that info for credit card verification, not to track what city their customers live in.

Sounds stupid, they can't ask you for your zip code but yet it is ok to ask you for your home address including city, your telephone number, and anything else they want but nooooo can't enter in something broad like a zip code. makes no sense. Can someone explain the logic... if there is any ?

I hate how you can't buy anything without being asked for a ton of info... Half the time I tell them I am travelling and have no fixed address or phone.

cant buy clothes anywhere anymore without being asked for your fucking email address.

Hmm... I've NEVER been asked for my email when buying clothes. And if I did, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. They'd probably explain they don't spam, and I'd explain that I've never given my email to anyone that said they spammed... yet I still get spammed regularly to the email addresses I've given out...

Your CA tax dollars hard at work.

I've been asked my zip code, that one I don't care I will tell them. When they ask for my email, I just tell them I don't have one lol. They kind of look at me like "yeah right" I am sure they get that one from time to time. Although if the check out girl is cute I will ask her for hers first, that usually throughs them for a curve ball.

Its just a matter of time and they will have you trying to add their facebook page and following them on twitter.

you think CA would be more concerned about not going bankrupt. So what if people ask for your zip, they not putting a fucking gun to your head, just tell them no or give them the zip code for a city in alaska and fuck up their geo tracking data collecting shit.

Funny thing about this is, people & lawmakers are all against this zip code collection and get all bent out of shape about handing it over at stores, but these SAME people have no problem posting every detail of their life on FaceBook and twitter who both sell this info as well as track every site you goto on the net and sell that info as well.

Idiots :Oh crap

This is right up there with Visa wanting a <CORP NAME INITIALS>*BLAH.COM for descriptors. All they're trying to do is fuck you harder on the fees.

what it would mean mostly is that the pre-join forms used by some programs to collect consumer data and email addresses cannot include zip codes, as that data is not only for the billing but for marketing.

And the answer is (drum roll, please).... California Civil Code Section 1747-1748.7, AKA the "Song-Beverly Credit Card Act."

My understanding is that the Court interpreted 1747.8, specifically, such that its definition covers ZIP code data.

Here's the actual language of the pertinent section of the law:

The statute defines "personal identification information as:


I've only skimmed the decision thus far, so there might be more to the ruling than the court's reading of that section, but I think that's the only portion of the statute that would make sense as a basis for the ruling.

Wow, lots of misinformation in this thread.

The CA law is in regards to swipe transactions with the customer present.

When someone is buying something at a POS terminal, the card company may require the store clerk to type in the last 4 digits of the card, which is pretty much designed to make the clerk actually look at the card and check the back for a signature. Then if the consumer hasn't signed the card, they are supposed to ask for ID. Most card companies don't ask for ZIP codes at POS since the customer is standing there with their card, and presumably, their ID.

Card not present transactions can ask for zip codes at the processing point, same as always, as that's one of the more basic card verification processes. It's no different than a gas station asking for a ZIP since there is no one standing at the pump to check to make sure the cardholder is the one using the card.

(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply in the following instances:
(1) When the credit card is being used as a deposit to secure
payment in the event of default, loss, damage, or other similar
occurrence.
(2) Cash advance transactions.
(3) When the person, firm, partnership, association, or
corporation accepting the credit card is contractually obligated to
provide personal identification information in order to complete the
credit card transaction or is obligated to collect and record the
personal identification information by federal law or regulation.

I think it's total BS. :pimp

Correct - in quoting Amelia's question, I should have noted that the real answer to her question is "none," because this isn't about using ZIP codes as part of a verification protocol, at all.

It's a little less clear to me that it is specifically limited to in-person/swipe transactions, however. That's definitely the kind of transaction involved in Pineda v. Williams Sonoma, but the plain language isn't entirely definitive on that score... unless I'm missing something?

Thanks, KK :thumbsup

Also, asking for at least a zip code, often used in conjunction with IP geolocation, is important for various hardcore niche sites to quickly filter out / redirect away potential customers who may be accessing from locales with strict local community standards.

Ron