Walgreens Invokes Separation of Powers in Reload Receipt Fight

Attorneys before the Illinois Supreme Court on Wednesday framed a dispute over class certification in sweeping terms, with Walgreen Co. warning justices that fundamental separation-of-powers principles are in play while the plaintiff urged them to remember they can remain independent of federal courts’ standing guidelines.

“This case asks you to decide who is empowered to determine whether a private citizen has standing to sue in an Illinois court,” attorney Robert Riley of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, representing Walgreens, told justices, saying they had a “tremendous responsibility.”

The Illinois-based drugstore giant wants the court to reject class certification in a case alleging Walgreens illegally printed too many digits on receipts for reloading a prepaid card.

The named plaintiff, Calley Fausett, didn’t have her identity stolen and was never actually at risk of harm, Riley argued Wednesday, so she doesn’t have the kind of concrete injury necessary to bring a case.

But Walgreens violated Fausett’s rights under the statute, attorney Adam Vaught argued, which under Illinois law is enough to bring a claim—and in addition, he said, the plaintiff testified she suffered from anxiety over the prospect of having her identity stolen.

The state supreme court in Rosenbach v. Six Flags found that a violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act caused an injury sufficient to bring suit, said Vaught of Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres. Decisions narrowing federal standing guidelines aren’t binding on the Illinois court, he said.

The law allows for recovery of actual damages or “statutory damages that are nominal,” Vaught said. “You don’t have to have anything additional.”

Riley said that language “relieves the party of having to quantify the damages, it doesn’t relieve the party of having to prove an injury.”

And as for Rosenbach, Riley said that BIPA is a significantly different law, since it deals with “immutable, unchangeable characteristics” like a fingerprint, “the mere disclosure of which is harmful.” The disclosure of financial identifiers doesn’t carry the same inherent harm, he argued.

Fausett used cash to reload a prepaid card at a Walgreens in Phoenix, Ariz. In return she got two receipts that featured 10 digits of the card number—a violation, she claims, of a federal law aimed to prevent fraud and identity theft.

The case has snowballed into a dispute over standing that could have significant ripple effects, experts said.

A lower court granted class certification to a nationwide group of some 1.6 million people, according to Walgreens, which is challenging their standing to sue. An appeals court rejected their claim and affirmed the certification, bringing the matter to the state’s highest court.

Neither Fausett nor her fellow class members were concretely injured, Walgreens argues, saying that an allegedly elevated risk of fraud isn’t enough to prove standing. In response, Fausett argues, the violation of a statutory right is enough to sue in Illinois courts.

Fausett is also represented by Keogh Law, Bret Lusskin of Golden Beach, Fla., and Scott Owens of Hollywood, Fla. Walgreen Co. is also represented by Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa.

The case is Fausett v. Walgreen Co., Ill., No. 131444, oral arguments 9/17/25.