809 F. Supp. 2d 1059
W.D. Mo.2011Background
- Missouri sold its driver’s license database, which Worldwide Information, Inc. then resold to third parties; Worldwide’s access spanned bulk data including highly sensitive fields like Social Security numbers.
- DPPA generally prohibits obtaining or disclosing personal information from motor vehicle records except for fourteen enumerated permissible uses; no explicit wholesale-reseller carve-out is listed.
- Worldwide obtained Missouri data without a specific permissible use for all records; its customers often received the entire database for single-per-record needs.
- Missouri's Form 4678 limited access to certain narrow uses and identified Worldwide as not a government agency; Worldwide previously represented it was acting as a government entity.
- Plaintiffs filed a DPPA class action alleging improper obtainment/disclosure and impermissible uses, seeking damages and other remedies; the court granted in part and denied in part on cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The court analyzed whether Worldwide could be an authorized recipient under 2721(c) and whether bulk distribution is generally permissible under the DPPA's structure and legislative history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPPA 2721(c) creates an authorization for resellers | Worldwide qualifies as an authorized recipient under 2721(c). | No; 2721(c) ties resales to the 2721(b) permissible uses, not to generic reseller status. | Worldwide not an authorized recipient; 2721(c) does not create wholesale reseller license. |
| Whether bulk sale/disclosure is permitted under DPPA | Bulk distribution is permissible if used for a permissible purpose, or with consent. | Bulk distribution is typically disallowed unless expressly authorized by a DPPA subsection, particularly (b)(12). | Bulk sale of whole databases is not generally permissible; Taylor's bulk-distribution view rejected here. |
| Whether DPPA provides a private right of action for false representations | Section 2722(a)/(b) creates a private remedy for false representations to obtain data. | No private right of action for false representations under 2722(b); enforcement lies elsewhere. | No private right of action for false representations; summary judgment granted for Worldwide on that claim. |
| Whether plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim survives | Defendant unjustly enriched by obtaining/disclosing data without permissible uses. | Unjust enrichment cannot be maintained absent a quasi-contract with plaintiffs. | Unjust enrichment claim failed as a matter of law; dismissed at summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) (rejects bulk DPPA resales; disputes Taylor’s bulk-distribution reading)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2000) (DPPA interpretation tied to privacy and federalism; authorized recipients linked to permissible uses)
- Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. 2002) (private rights-creation analysis for statutory rights in DPPA context)
- Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. 2004) (statutory interpretation and silence on rights-creation; avoid surplusage readings)
- Harmon Indus., Inc. v. Browner, 191 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 1999) (statutory interpretation: purpose and context govern, not mere remedial labeling)
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1982) (lenity and plain meaning considerations in statutory interpretation)