Johnson v. West Publishing Corp.
801 F. Supp. 2d 862
W.D. Mo.2011Background
- DPPA enacted to protect drivers' privacy; prohibits obtaining/disclosing personal DMV information for non-permitted uses
- West Publishing buys large DMV databases from multiple states; makes personal information searchable and saleable online
- Johnson brings class action alleging DPPA violations for obtaining and disseminating drivers' data for impermissible uses
- West seeks judgment on the pleadings arguing bulk resale for permissible uses is allowed under DPPA
- Court rejects bulk-resale-as-permitted reading, and construes 2721(c) to tie resellers to the specific DPPA-permissible uses in 2721(b)
- Court proceeds with standing and merits to determine DPPA scope and remedies against West
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPPA allows resellers to obtain DMV data for resale | Johnson argues no wholesale resale absent DPPA-permitted use | West argues resale is permitted if for permissible uses | No; resale by a general reseller not tied to DPPA-permitted use is not authorized |
| Whether 2721(c) permits bulk resale to a reseller | Bulk resale is limited by 2721(b) uses and not a free pass | Bulk resale possible if purchaser will use information per DPPA | Bulk resale not generally permissible; 2721(c) ties resales to 2721(b) permits |
| Plain language and legislative history support limiting resales | Text/legislative history show narrow, purpose-bound resales | Taylor ChoicePoint view supports broad resales | Court adopts narrow reading: authorized recipients must be tied to specific permissible uses |
| Whether Plaintiff has standing to sue | DPPA violations cause privacy injury; injury-in-fact exists | Standing contested given bulk data practices | Plaintiff has standing; privacy invasion constitutes injury under DPPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) (bulk distribution not automatically permissible; need permissible use for each recipient)
- ChoicePoint Servs., Inc. v. Harris, 300 F. Supp. 2d 450 (E.D. La. 2004) (authorized recipients tied to DPPA 2721(b) exceptions; states cannot broadly authorize resellers)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2000) (DPPA structure and authorized recipients linked to permissible purposes; informs 2721(c) interpretation)
- Kehoe v. Fid. Bank & Trust, 421 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2005) (discretionary damages; DPPA remedies and purpose to deter violations)