942 N.W.2d 696
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Adam and Sara Nyman) discovered Westlaw (Thomson Reuters) published the first five digits of their Social Security numbers on a subscriber-only public records portal and sent a presuit demand requesting removal and $5,000 (seeking $1,000 statutory damages each plus attorneys’ fees).
- Plaintiffs sued under the Social Security Number Privacy Act (SSNPA), MCL 445.81 et seq., and asserted tort claims (invasion of privacy — public disclosure of private facts — and negligence).
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing plaintiffs failed to plead actual damages and did not comply with SSNPA’s presuit-demand documentation requirement; defendant also argued the display did not constitute a public display under the statute.
- The trial court granted dismissal without prejudice, concluding plaintiffs failed to plead actual damages and had not shown the first-five-digits publication met the statute’s definition of a public display.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding SSNPA requires pleading and proving actual damages before pursuing statutory damages or suit, and plaintiffs’ tort claims likewise failed for lack of present injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSNPA permits suit for statutory $1,000 without pleading actual damages | Nyman: SSNPA allows election of statutory $1,000 in lieu of pleading actual damages | Westlaw: SSNPA requires pleading and proof of actual damages and a presuit demand with documentation | Court: SSNPA unambiguously requires pleading and proof of actual damages; statutory $1,000 available only after proof of actual damages for a knowing violation |
| Whether presuit written demand must include documentation of actual damages | Nyman: demand letter sufficed; statutory damages election obviates need for damage documentation | Westlaw: statute requires demand to state amount of actual damages with reasonable documentation (except for good cause) | Court: demand must state actual damages with reasonable documentation; good-cause exception only excuses presuit requirement, not pleading damages |
| Whether plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded actual damages in complaint | Nyman: complaint and inference of anxiety/credit-freeze costs suffice | Westlaw: complaint contains no factual allegations of present injury or losses | Court: complaint lacked allegations of present, cognizable damages; speculative future harm insufficient |
| Whether plaintiffs’ invasion-of-privacy and negligence claims survive absent present injury | Nyman: tort claims can proceed based on the disclosure itself or potential harm | Westlaw: common-law claims require present injury and damages | Court: common-law claims require present injury; plaintiffs failed to allege actual harm, so tort claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalley v Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich. App. 296 (court summarizes MCR 2.116(C)(8) pleading standard)
- Rowland v Washtenaw Co Road Comm, 477 Mich. 197 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Ally Fin. Inc. v State Treasurer, 502 Mich. 484 (read statute as whole; plain-meaning approach)
- Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich. 156 (four-part framework for statutory interpretation)
- Doe v Henry Ford Health Sys, 308 Mich. App. 592 (disclosure of private medical information; present-injury requirement for damages)