In June 2013, Paul M. Stelmachers took a taxi cab ride in Las Vegas, Nevada, and paid for the cab fare with his credit card. A VeriFone Systems Inc. product was used to receive payment in the taxi cab. Stelmachers noticed that the computer generated receipt displayed more than the last five digits of his credit card. In November 2014, Stelmachers filed an instant class action suit against VeriFone, asserting that VeriFone had violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003. VeriFone responded by filing a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In its motion, VeriFone stated three arguments, (1) FACTA does not prohibit merchants from printing the first digit of a credit card number; (2) Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that VeriFone willfully violated FACTA, and thus cannot seek statutory damages; and (3) Plaintiff sued the wrong party because FACTA does not apply to point-of-sale system providers like VeriFone. What do you think of VeriFone's argument? Which argument did the court deem most important and why? How did the court rule? Explain the court's reasoning. [Stelmachers v. VeriFone Systems, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163857.]