Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Schnader
attorneys at law
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Schnader
attorneys at law
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Schnader
attorneys at law
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Schnader
attorneys at law
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Schnader
attorneys at law
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Schnader
attorneys at law
New York
PeNNsYlvaNia
CaliforNia
washiNgtoN, D.C.
New JerseY
DelawareNew York
PeNNsYlvaNia
CaliforNia
washiNgtoN, D.C.
New JerseY
DelawareNew York
PeNNsYlvaNia
CaliforNia
washiNgtoN, D.C.
New JerseY
DelawareNew York
PeNNsYlvaNia
CaliforNia
washiNgtoN, D.C.
New JerseY
DelawareNew York
PeNNsYlvaNia
CaliforNia
washiNgtoN, D.C.
New JerseY
Delaware
July
2013
(continued on page 2)(continued on page 2)(continued on page 2)(continued on page 2)
Supreme Court Holds That
Solicitation of Clients is Not a Permitted Use
Under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act
By Arlene Fickler and John R. Timmer
other investigative function relating to litigation), then
that obtainment or use is not permitted by the litigation
exception. Yet despite this relatively narrow holding, it
is the “predominant purpose” test itself that may be the
most important legacy of the Maracich opinion, as that
test establishes how courts likely will address the per-
missibility of how motor vehicle information is used
in the future.
The respondents in Maracich were South Carolina
lawyers who had been engaged to le litigation against
car dealerships for alleged violations of South Caro-
lina law. Before ling suit, the South Carolina law-
yers obtained from the South Carolina Department of
Motor Vehicles the names of automobile purchasers
and sent letters to those individuals, soliciting them
to join the litigation that was to be led. Recipients of
the letters subsequently brought a putative class ac-
tion against the lawyers, alleging DPPA violations for
the obtainment and use of their personal information
from motor vehicle records and seeking liquidated
damages of $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA.
Because of the number of solicitation letters sent by
the South Carolina lawyers, the potential damages ap-
proximated $200 million.
The District Court for the District of South Carolina
granted the South Carolina lawyers’ motion for sum-
mary judgment, nding that the acquisition and use
of the purchasers’ personal information satised the
litigation exception to the DPPA because it was an
“investigation in anticipation of litigation.” An appeal
On June 19, 2013, in Maracich v. Spears, No. 12-
25, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an
opinion interpreting the Driver’s Privacy Protection
Act (the DPPA), which prohibits the use of personal
information from motor vehicle records except for 14
specically enumerated purposes. In an opinion writ-
ten by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that if an at-
torney’s predominant purpose in contacting individu-
als whose addresses were obtained from motor vehicle
records is the solicitation of clients, then the use of the
information is not permitted under the DPPA’s “litiga-
tion exception,” one of the act’s permitted purposes.
The 5-4 Maracich opinion resolved a split among the
circuits about the interpretation of the litigation ex-
ception, which provides that motor vehicle record in-
formation may be used “in connection with any civil,
criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any
Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any
self-regulatory body, including the service of process,
investigation in anticipation of litigation, and the ex-
ecution of judgments and order, or pursuant to an order
of a Federal, State, or local court.” 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)
(4). Justice Kennedy’s opinion, in which Justices Rob-
erts, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito joined, set forth a
“predominant purpose” test as the means to determine
whether an individual’s obtainment and use of motor
vehicle information is permitted by the litigation ex-
ception. That is, if an attorney’s predominant purpose
in obtaining or using motor vehicle information is the
solicitation of clients (as contrasted with developing
the factual basis for the complaint, locating witnesses,
identifying additional defendants, or performing any
CL AS S ACtion
ALERTalertalert
