This goes into effect on 01-01-10. It "prohibits a person from printing a person's driver's license number on a receipt or other document that evidences payment for a sale of goods or services and is provided to the individual." (Texas Bar Journal, September 2009, p. 664) Does this mean that a retailer cannot ask for a driver's license as a form of identification when one is writing a check for payment of goods or services?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mitzi mcevoy:
Does this mean that a retailer cannot ask for a driver's license as a form of identification when one is writing a check for payment of goods or services?

---

In my opinion, no.

This was not a bill we really followed during the session. However, as with all legislative summaries--including those that we put out--you must read the actual language of a bill before acting on it. This bill adds the following section to the Business & Commerce Code:

Sec. 501.1011. SALES RECEIPT CONTAINING DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER PROHIBITED. A person may not print an individual's driver's license number on a receipt that evidences payment for a sale of goods or services and is provided to the individual.

In addition, here is the bill analysis from the House of Representatives:

"Identity theft is a serious problem. Some retail organizations require customers who wish to return merchandise to the organization to provide the person's driver's license number when the return is made, and the retail organization stores this information to keep track of all returns to ensure that there are no suspicious persons making numerous returns. A consumer's driver's license number is often printed on a receipt of sale, and receipts are easy to lose and can be accidently discarded. Printing a driver's license number on a receipt can potentially lead to someone's identity being stolen. Safety precautions to protect consumers are needed."

So, as you can see, the bill specifically references "a receipt that evidences payment for a sale of goods or services and is provided to the individual." Neither of those applies to checks, last time I checked; even those checks processed by EFT are accompanied by a separate receipt, so it is THAT receipt, not the check, that would be at issue.

p.s. - you can also chalk this bill up as creating another "new duty" for prosecutors who will have the authority to file civil actions against those who violate this provision. Yippee.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannon Edmonds:

So, as you can see, the bill specifically references "a _receipt_ that evidences payment for a sale of goods or services and _is provided to the individual_." Neither of those applies to checks, last time I checked; even those checks processed by EFT are accompanied by a separate receipt, so it is THAT receipt, not the check, that would be at issue.

p.s. - you can also chalk this bill up as creating another "new duty" for prosecutors who will have the authority to file civil actions against those who violate this provision. Yippee.

---

Good points.