William Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C.
35 F.4th 917
4th Cir.2022Background
- North Carolina law-enforcement accident reports (commonly called DMV-349s) record drivers’ names and home addresses; some reports are also sold by private data brokers.
- A group of personal-injury attorneys obtained these accident reports (from local law enforcement or brokers) and mailed unsolicited attorney solicitations to drivers named in the reports.
- Two groups of drivers sued under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a), alleging the attorneys knowingly obtained/used personal information from motor vehicle records for an impermissible purpose.
- The district court held plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek damages but not injunctive relief, and granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground the DPPA applies only to information obtained from a state DMV (which defendants had not done).
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held plaintiffs have standing for damages but not for prospective relief, and resolved the merits narrowly: DPPA liability requires obtaining personal information “from a motor vehicle record,” and plaintiffs failed to show defendants obtained information from such records (and had not preserved the argument that the accident reports themselves are motor vehicle records).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for damages | DPPA violations are privacy harms analogous to common-law privacy torts, sufficient for standing | No cognizable injury absent concrete harm; statutory violation alone insufficient | Plaintiffs have standing for damages — DPPA privacy harm parallels common-law privacy (TransUnion/Spokeo analysis) |
| Standing for injunctive relief | Ongoing or imminent misuse/obtaining of plaintiffs’ info supports prospective relief | No imminent or ongoing injury to named plaintiffs | No standing for injunctions — plaintiffs failed to plead ongoing or certainly impending obtaining/use as to named plaintiffs (Garey dropped "use" theory; Hatch’s allegations insufficiently specific) |
| Scope of § 2724(a): must information be obtained "from" a motor vehicle record? | DPPA should cover information that originated in or was "derived from" motor vehicle records (e.g., addresses that match license info) | DPPA requires obtaining information directly from a motor vehicle record; "derived from" was omitted from final text | Held: § 2724(a) requires obtaining information "from a motor vehicle record"; Congress considered and removed "derived from," so derived/traceable information is not enough |
| Are accident reports or other non-DMV sources "motor vehicle records" or did defendants obtain info from DMV databases/licenses? | Accident reports (and license-derived addresses on them) are motor vehicle records or at least traceable to DMV records | Defendants obtained reports from law enforcement/brokers, not from DMV or DMV databases/licenses | Court did not decide whether accident reports or licenses are "motor vehicle records" because plaintiffs failed to preserve the argument (thus defendants did not obtain plaintiffs’ info "from" such records as pleaded) |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (Sup. Ct. 2021) (statutory plaintiffs may establish Article III injury by identifying a close historical/common-law analogue)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (statutory violation alone does not automatically satisfy Article III; injury must be concrete)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (standing requires concrete injury; Congress can elevate de facto harms)
- Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 925 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2019) (privacy statutes like the TCPA protect concrete privacy interests analogous to common-law torts for standing)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (attorney solicitation using DMV-obtained info can be an impermissible DPPA purpose)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (past injury alone does not establish standing for injunctive relief without a real and immediate threat)
- Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019) (discusses whether DPPA’s "motor vehicle record" includes documents not held by DMV)
- Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk Sols., Inc., 483 F. Supp. 3d 318 (W.D.N.C. 2020) (district court decision treating similar accident reports as DPPA motor vehicle records)