April 19, 2021

Volume XI, Number 109

Advertisement

April 16, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Court Sides with Defendant in Driver Privacy Litigation

In a recent Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq. case, a federal court in North Carolina denied plaintiffs’ motion for relief after the Court entered summary judgment in favor of several law office defendants who sent advertisements marketing legal services.

In Hatch v. Demayo, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55601 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2021), the plaintiffs—after being involved in car accidents—provided information from their driver’s licenses to law enforcement for the completion of DMV accident report forms.  Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs claimed they received unsolicited marketing materials from various law offices.  Plaintiffs then filed suit alleging that several law office defendants violated the DPPA by obtaining their information from the accident reports for the purpose of using the information to advertise legal services.

As the court noted, “[t]he DPPA holds liable certain parties for the misuse of a driver’s information if that data has been collected from a ‘motor vehicle record’.”  A motor vehicle record means “any record that pertains to a motor vehicle operator’s permit, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration, or identification card issued by a department of motor vehicles.”  18 U.S.C. § 2725(1).  In deciding defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court noted that plaintiffs failed to allege that the DMV form was a motor vehicle record.  When denying plaintiffs’ motion for relief, the Court further reasoned that plaintiffs’ argumentthat the DMV form was essentially a motor vehicle record because it relied on information taken from a driver’s license or DMV database—was insufficient.  The court declined to leniently construe the allegations, stating that “Plaintiffs could have easily made the straightforward contention that DMV-349s were in fact motor vehicle records and chose not to do so.”

The Court also acknowledged plaintiffs’ reliance a decision out of the Western District of North Carolina (Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk Sols. Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160012 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 2, 2020)), but concluded that the “single, non-controlling case” reaching a different conclusion was not sufficient to support plaintiffs’ argument of clear error.  The Court therefore denied plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment.

Advertisement
© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 97
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Hannah J. Makinde Corporate Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Los Angeles, CA
Associate

Hannah Makinde is a litigation associate who practices in federal and state courts. Her practice includes general corporate litigation, toxic tort, contractual disputes and various matters for automotive clients.

Hannah manages cases at all stages of litigation, with particular experience in preparing pleadings, motions and discovery, as well as representing clients in both offensive and defensive depositions.

Prior to joining the firm, Hannah practiced civil litigation as an in-house attorney for a natural gas provider. In previous years, she clerked for the Honorable Roger...

213-689-5142
Advertisement
Advertisement