The Illinois Supreme Court reversed an appellate court decision that had affirmed class action certification in a privacy case against Walgreens, marking a significant development in consumer protection litigation under federal credit reporting laws.
In *Fausett v. Walgreen Company*, decided Nov. 20, 2025, the court addressed whether plaintiff Calley Fausett could proceed with a nationwide class action alleging that Walgreens willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) by printing more than the legally permitted digits of debit card numbers on customer receipts.
Justice Holder White delivered the court's opinion, with Chief Justice Neville and Justices Overstreet, Cunningham, Rochford, and O'Brien concurring. Justice Theis took no part in the decision.
The case originated when Fausett filed suit claiming Walgreens violated FACTA's requirements by printing more than the last five digits of debit card numbers on receipts provided to consumers. FACTA, which is part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, was designed to protect consumers from identity theft by limiting the amount of sensitive financial information that can be displayed on receipts.
When Fausett moved for class certification of her FACTA claim, Walgreens opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was not actionable and that she lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The circuit court disagreed with Walgreens' position and granted certification to a nationwide class of affected consumers.
Walgreens then pursued an interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(8), which allows parties to petition for leave to appeal circuit court orders granting class action certification. The appellate court initially affirmed the certification decision, addressing specifically the issue of standing and finding that Fausett had proper standing to bring her FACTA claim.
However, the Illinois Supreme Court reached a different conclusion, reversing the appellate court's affirmation of the class certification. The reversal represents a victory for Walgreens and potentially sets a precedent that could affect similar privacy-related class action lawsuits against retailers.
FACTA's receipt provisions were enacted as part of broader consumer protection measures designed to combat identity theft. The law requires that receipts show no more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number and cannot show the card's expiration date. Violations can result in statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 per violation, with higher penalties for willful violations.
The pharmaceutical retail giant had argued throughout the litigation that Fausett's claims should not proceed as a class action. While the specific reasoning for the Supreme Court's reversal was not detailed in the available excerpts of the opinion, the decision suggests the court found issues with either the plaintiff's standing to bring the claim or with the appropriateness of class action treatment for this type of FACTA violation.
Class action certification in FACTA cases has been a contentious issue in federal and state courts. Courts must determine whether common issues of law and fact predominate over individual questions, whether the proposed class is sufficiently numerous, and whether the named plaintiff can adequately represent the class members' interests.
The ruling could have broader implications for retailers facing similar receipt-printing challenges. Many businesses have implemented new point-of-sale systems and receipt formats to comply with FACTA requirements, but technical failures or system errors can sometimes result in violations.
For Walgreens, the decision eliminates the prospect of facing a potentially costly nationwide class action over receipt printing practices. The company operates thousands of pharmacy locations across the United States and processes millions of transactions daily, meaning that even technical violations could theoretically affect large numbers of customers.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension between consumer privacy protections and the practical challenges businesses face in implementing complex compliance requirements across large retail operations.
While the Illinois Supreme Court's reversal prevents this particular case from proceeding as a class action, individual consumers may still be able to pursue FACTA claims against retailers for receipt violations. The decision does not necessarily preclude other plaintiffs from attempting to certify different classes based on different factual circumstances or legal theories.
The ruling comes at a time when consumer privacy protections are receiving increased attention from both legislators and courts. Businesses continue to navigate evolving requirements around data protection, financial privacy, and consumer notification obligations.
For now, the decision provides clarity for Walgreens regarding this specific litigation while potentially offering guidance for other retailers defending against similar FACTA receipt-printing claims in Illinois courts.