Cook v. ACS STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24840
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs sue multiple defendants alleging DPPA violations from obtaining Missouri DOR driver information.
- Two theories: bulk obtainment to stockpile for future uses, and bulk obtainment to resell to third parties.
- Defendants allegedly had no immediate permissible use for all records; DPPA permits uses but not improper resales.
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), adopting Taylor-like analysis that bulk obtainment for a permissible use is not per se unlawful.
- Appellants appeal, arguing stockpiling and resale violate the DPPA; the court holds the district court properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does bulk obtainment for a permissible purpose violate the DPPA? | Stockpiling records violates DPPA. | Bulk obtainment facilitates permissible end uses; not unlawful. | Bulk obtainment for permissible use is not a DPPA violation. |
| Does resale to third parties violate the DPPA when the end user has permissible uses? | Resale without immediate end use violates DPPA. | DPPA allows resale; focus is on end use, not purchaser's immediate use. | resale is permitted so long as end use is permissible. |
| Was the district court's dismissal proper on the DPPA claims? | Plaintiffs stated valid DPPA claims. | Complaint fails to state a DPPA claim. | Yes, the district court's dismissal was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) (DPPA focuses on end use, not bulk acquisition)
- Graczyk v. West Publ'g Co., 660 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 2011) (bulk obtainment analyzed in context of end use)
- Howard v. Criminal Info. Servs., Inc., 654 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2011) (end-use focus; DPPA does not require immediate use)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2000) (DPPA background; consent and permissible uses)
- Roth v. Guzman, 650 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2011) (DPPA end-use perspective on information resale)