Howard v. CRIMINAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
654 F.3d 887
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege DPPA violations where Defendants purchased driver record information in bulk for future use.
- DPPA permits certain uses; Plaintiffs contend bulk stockpiling is not among them.
- Defendants do not challenge the ultimate uses were permitted; the dispute is whether bulk acquisition itself is unlawful.
- Two actions were filed in Oregon and Washington seeking class damages; cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Court consolidates the appeals and addresses whether stockpiling constitutes an improper purpose under the DPPA.
- Court aligns with Fifth and Sixth Circuits in holding bulk acquisition for future use is not an unlawful DPPA purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is stockpiling bulk DPPA data a prohibited purpose? | Howard/Kossa etc. argue stockpiling is an improper purpose. | Defendants contend stockpiling is not a 'purpose' and not prohibited. | Stockpiling is not a prohibited purpose. |
| Does obtaining information for future use violate DPPA if it is not currently used for an impermissible purpose? | Plaintiffs claim any bulk acquisition for future use is unlawful. | Defendants argue DPPA focuses on use, not the act of bulk acquisition for future permissible uses. | DPPA liability hinges on use, not mere future-use potential. |
| Whether the complaint states a claim when defendants only claim future-use access would be for permitted purposes. | Plaintiffs assert bulk access signals improper intent. | Defendants state existing uses of information would be permissible; bulk access does not negate that. | Complaint properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2000) (DPPA background and data protection framework)
- Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) (bulk DMV record purchases permissible for future use under DPPA)
- Roth v. Guzman, 650 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2011) (bulk acquisition for DPPA-permitted uses upheld)
- Thomas v. George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King and Stevens, P.A., 525 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2008) (elements of DPPA liability under §2724(a))