Driver’s Privacy Protection Act-Class Action

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Alp Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Company

Case No.: 22-1892

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Easterbrook and Ripple, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Driver’s Privacy Protection Act-Class Action

Midvale implemented an “instant quote” feature on their websites, allowing individuals to receive quick auto insurance quotes upon providing basic identification details. The system automatically filled in certain data, including the applicant’s driver’s license number. Interestingly, by inputting a stranger’s name and home address, one could trigger the form to unveil the driver’s license number of that unrelated individual. Due to suspicious activities implying misuse, Midvale halted the autofill function and informed those whose information had been inappropriately exposed. In response, three individuals who had received these notifications initiated a class action lawsuit under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, denoted as 18 U.S.C. 2721–25.

The district court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to their inability to demonstrate a concrete harm resulting from the disclosure, and this absence of harm could not be linked to the exposure itself. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, noting that even the applicability of the Act in this context is dubious. The Act’s main provisions are aimed primarily at state officials rather than private entities. Moreover, a driver’s license number is not inherently invasive or potentially embarrassing; it represents a neutral piece of information sourced from public records. This detail is commonly known to numerous private actors and is willingly shared with banks, insurers, hotels, and similar entities. The plaintiffs have not convincingly alleged that Midvale’s revelation of their driver’s license numbers led to any form of harm. Additionally, the release of a number commonly used by both public and private entities does not align with any established legal tort.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/22/23

Full Text