Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities.
Sign up now!
The initial ruling comes as a result of a lawsuit filed against Williams-Sonoma Inc. in 2008.The customer who filed the suit, claimed that being asked for her ZIP code while in the process of making a purchase defied the protections afforded consumers by a California consumer privacy law. Under this law, merchants cannot request nor record a card holder’s ''personal identification information,'' which includes any information that can be used to track or locate a customer. Merchants who fail to abide by the law can face fines up to $1,000. The Supreme Court ruled against Williams-Sonoma Inc., confirming that ZIP codes are in fact ''personal identification information.'' The decision overturned two lower-court decisions to throw the lawsuit out.
However, not everyone is in agreement with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in this case. Some suggest that merchants are actually providing a fraud prevention service by requesting the customer’s ZIP code. Others argue that providing such information is harmless as it is only used for marketing purposes. But according to Gene J. Stonebarger, a lawyer involved in the suit against Williams-Sonoma Inc., providing personal information, including a ZIP code, can lead to credit card fraud and identity theft. He is currently preparing to file lawsuits against other businesses who are still asking for customer ZIP codes.
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out.
Sign up now!
What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
