Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust v. Kehoe

Background

The bank bought names and addresses for 565,600 people from Florida’s motor-vehicle agency for a penny apiece (total $5,656) to mail loan-refinancing offers. Florida had not immediately changed its law to match the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, so none of those people had given the law’s required 'express consent.' The bank faces claims under the federal law that could carry $2,500 per person, putting its liability at about $1.4 billion and potentially $40 billion across similar cases. A federal trial court had ruled for the bank on whether victims needed to prove 'actual damages'; the Eleventh Circuit reversed and sent the case back.

Reasoning

The main legal question is whether people suing under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act must prove they suffered actual harm before getting money. Another unresolved question is whether a company can be held liable if it did not know the state failed to obtain consent. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Alito, said these important statutory issues and the huge potential liability weigh in favor of review but explained that taking the case now would be premature. The Court therefore refused to review the appeal, leaving those questions open for the lower courts to decide further.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to review, the conflicting lower-court rulings and the large possible damages remain unsettled. Businesses that buy motor-vehicle records, state agencies, and people whose information was released must wait for further proceedings. The decision is not a final ruling on the law’s meaning and could change if the Court later takes the case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia filed a short concurrence, joined by Justice Alito, explaining why denial was appropriate now but noting the statutory and knowledge questions might warrant later review.