360 F. Supp. 3d 1140
E.D. Wash.2019Background
- Plaintiff Jade Wilcox alleges defendants Swapp and Swapp Law purchased >10,000 Washington Police Traffic Collision Reports (PTCRs) and used personal information from them to send signed solicitation letters for legal services.
- PTCRs were populated via SECTOR software that scans bar codes on driver's licenses and vehicle registrations; those bar codes contain name, address, license number, DOB, etc., input by the state Department of Licensing (DOL).
- Wilcox alleges she received a solicitation letter signed by Craig Swapp after accidents in 2015 and 2016; she contends the letter used her DPPA-protected information obtained from PTCRs.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Wilcox failed to plead the elements of a DPPA claim (knowing use, source, impermissible purpose).
- The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for the motion to dismiss and analyzed whether they plausibly satisfied the DPPA elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Swapp "knowingly used" DPPA-protected personal information | Wilcox: Swapp "used" information by authorizing/sending solicitation letters bearing his signature | Swapp: No allegation he personally signed letters; absent personal action, he did not "use" the data | Court: Signature on letters plausibly alleges Swapp personally "used" the information; claim survives dismissal |
| Whether information on licenses/registrations qualifies as a "motor vehicle record" | Wilcox: Info is protected if originally sourced to state DOL; license/registration data "pertain to" motor vehicle records | Swapp: DPPA should protect only data copied directly from state DMV records; allowing broader coverage yields absurd results | Court: "Motor vehicle record" covers information on licenses/registrations and bar codes sourced from DOL; no direct-source requirement read into statute |
| Whether providing license/registration to officer negates DPPA protection | Wilcox: Source is state DOL; voluntary/involuntary transfer to police does not strip DPPA protection | Swapp: If driver provided documents to officer, DPPA should not apply to subsequent uses | Court: Voluntariness irrelevant here; complaint sufficiently alleges information originated from DOL so DPPA applies |
| Whether use for solicitation is an impermissible purpose under DPPA | Wilcox: Soliciting legal services using DPPA data is impermissible | Swapp: (not disputed as to impermissibility) | Court: Using DPPA-protected info to solicit legal services is an impermissible purpose; element satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted as facts at pleading stage)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (pleading standards; view allegations in plaintiff's favor)
- Howard v. Criminal Info. Servs., Inc., 654 F.3d 887 (sets out DPPA elements)
- Lake v. Neal, 585 F.3d 1059 (interpretation of "pertains to" in DPPA definition)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (using DPPA-protected info to solicit legal services is impermissible)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (ordinary meaning of "use" in statutes)
Outcome: Defendants' motion to dismiss denied; Wilcox's amended complaint plausibly alleges all three DPPA elements against Swapp and Swapp Law, PLLC.