carefully, can be expected to consult relevant legislation in advance of action.” Iosello, 502 F.Supp.2d at 785 (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982)). The Court finds that section 1681c(g) is not vague and ambiguous. The plain language of the statute has only one reasonable meaning: It “unambiguously prohibits a person from printing more than the last five digits of a credit card on a receipt and from printing the expiration date on a receipt.” Troy, 2008 WL 1766526, at *3. This is exactly what Plaintiff has alleged Defendants did here. Other courts in this District have uniformly rejected the argument that FACTA is vague and ambiguous such that a willful violation is impossible. See, e.g., id. (<HOLDING>); Iosello, 502 F.Supp.2d at 785-86 (same);
holding that the illinois statutory definitions of sexual penetration and sexual conduct cover clearly distinct conduct and that therefore the statute was not unconstitutionally vague holding that term unreasonable noise was not vague recognizing we will not consider theories on appeal alluded to in a vague or ambiguous manner holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding facta was not vague and ambiguous and that defendants conduct was willful