Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Privacy – DPPA — standing

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 28, 2011//

Privacy – DPPA — standing

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 28, 2011//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

Civil

Privacy – DPPA — standing

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act creates a federal private right of action, but does not prohibit resale of DMV records to those with permissible uses under the Act.

“We disagree with the district court’s resolution of the standing question. The DPPA protects individuals from certain uses or disclosures of their personal information and creates a federal right of action for the same. See 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a); see also Taylor v. Tex. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 325, 340 n.15 (5th Cir. 2010). Congress has defined the relevant injury under the DPPA as the ‘obtain[ment], disclos[ure], or [use],’ 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a), of an individual’s personal information. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007) (‘Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.’). The plaintiffs allege that West Publishing engages in bulk compilation and distribution of their personal information, which West Publishing obtains from DMV records, and that this constitutes a disclosure or use of the plaintiffs’ personal information that is prohibited by the DPPA. A ruling in the plaintiff’s favor would mean that West Publishing could no longer obtain the plaintiffs personal information and resell it. The plaintiffs have therefore alleged an injury in fact, caused by West Publishing, that would be redressed by a decision in their favor, and so they have standing to bring this case. See id.; see also Taylor, 612 F.3d at 340-41 (addressing same legal question presented in this case and concluding that the plaintiffs had standing).”

“At least one of our sister circuits has addressed precisely the question at issue here and has concluded that the DPPA does not prohibit a reseller, such as West Publishing, from reselling personal information to others with permissible uses. Taylor, 612 F.3d at 338- 339. The Department of Justice, in an unpublished letter, has also concluded that states may release personal information to commercial distributors that disseminate the information only to entities that use the information solely for authorized purposes. Unpublished Letter of October 9, 1995 from Robert C. McFetridge, Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney Gen., to Peter Sacks, Office of the Attorney Gen. for the Commonwealth of Mass. (on file with this court). Another circuit has held that the DPPA permits DMVs to release records to those who vouch for their lawful uses under section 2721(b). Roth v. Guzman, ___ F.3d ___, No. 10-3542, 2011 WL 2306224, at *9-11 (6th Cir. June 13, 2011). And the Ninth Circuit has held that it is lawful for private individuals to store records obtained pursuant to one of the exceptions in section 2721(b). See Howard, 2011 WL 3559940, at *3. In line with these cases, we hold the DPPA does not prohibit West Publishing from reselling records it obtains from state DMVs to persons with permissible uses under section 2721(b). It was therefore proper for the district court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim under the DPPA. Further, since the plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and for injunctive relief are premised on West Publishing’s alleged violation of the DPPA, we also conclude that the district court properly dismissed these claims.”

Affirmed.

10-1193 Graczyk v. West Publishing Co.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gettleman, J., Williams, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests