O.C.G.A. § 16-9-130 (2019)
Damages available to consumer victim; no defense that others engage in comparable practices; service of complaint
(a) Any consumer victim who suffers injury or damages as a result of a violation of this article may bring an action individually or as a representative of a class against the person or persons engaged in such violations under the rules of civil procedure to seek equitable injunctive relief and to recover general and punitive damages sustained as a consequence thereof in any court having jurisdiction over the defendant; provided, however, that punitive damages shall be awarded only in cases of intentional violation. A claim under this article may also be asserted as a defense, setoff, cross-claim, or counterclaim or third-party claim against such person. (b) A court shall award three times actual damages for an intentional violation. (c) If the court finds in any action that there has been a violation of this article, the consumer victim injured by such violation shall, in addition to other relief provided for in this Code section and irrespective of the amount in controversy, be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation incurred in connection with said action. (d) It shall not be a defense in any action under this article that others were, are, or will be engaged in like practices. (e) In any action brought under this article the Attorney General shall be served by certified or registered mail or statutory overnight delivery with a copy of the initial complaint and any amended complaint within 20 days of the filing of such complaint. The Attorney General shall be entitled to be heard in any such action, and the court where such action is filed may enter an order requiring any of the parties to serve a copy of any other pleadings in an action upon the Attorney General.
History
(Code 1981, § 16-9-130, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 551, § 2; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 16/SB 148; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 16/HB 323.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Overcoming Under-Compensation and UnderDeterrence in Intentional Tort Cases: Are Statutory Multiple Damages the Best Remedy?,’’ see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 449 (2011).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Construed with other statutes and rules. - Fact that class actions were authorized for identity fraud claims under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-130(a) did not obviate the need to comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-23(b), such that class certification was properly denied in a former employee’s suit alleging identity fraud and other matters due to the former employer’s submission of subagent license applications without employee authorization; individualized issues regarding employee signatures and authorizations predominated over common issues. Perez v.
Atlanta Check Cashers, Inc., 302 Ga. App. 864, 692 S.E.2d 670 (2010). Civil liability not proven. - Employee pointed to no evidence creating a reasonable inference that the three former coworkers willfully and fraudulently used the employee’s identifying information in violation of Georgia law because the employee only speculated that the type of information used in the identity theft may have come from the employment application. Wells v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech. Inc., 571 Fed. Appx. 732 (11th Cir. July 1, 2014) (Unpublished).