Use of privacy act to fish for clients heads for high court

WASHINGTON (Dolan Media Newswires) — Does the litigation exception to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act allow lawyers to obtain, disclose or use personal information solely to find clients to represent in a developing lawsuit, including solicitation through a direct mail advertising campaign?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer this question.

It will review a decision from the 4th Circuit which held that lawyers did not violate the act when they obtained state driving records for the purpose of identifying plaintiffs for potential class actions.

In Maracich v. Spears, South Carolina lawyers instituted multiple consumer class actions against car dealerships in the state. The lawsuits claimed that the dealerships violated state law by collecting certain fees from car buyers.

In order to identify those with potential claims, the defendants obtained from the state department of motor vehicles the names, addresses, telephone numbers and car purchase information of thousands of car buyers.

Car buyers who received mailings from the lawyers regarding the dealership litigation filed suit. They alleged that the defendants violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act by obtaining and using their personal information without their consent.

A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the lawyers, dismissing the suit.

The 4th Circuit agreed, concluding that the defendants’ acquisition and use of the personal information in this case was permitted under the act’s litigation exception.

“[A]lthough the record supports the [plaintiffs’] contention that the [defendants] engaged in solicitation, i.e., that they induced the DMV to disclose the [plaintiffs’] personal information in the absence of the [plaintiffs’] consent, because the solicitation was entirely consistent with state law, was integral to, and was, indeed, inextricably intertwined with the [defendants’] permissible use of the [plaintiffs’] personal information pursuant to the litigation exception, the [plaintiffs’] claims fail as a matter of law,” the court said.