Maracich v. Spears

Background

A group of trial lawyers used South Carolina’s public-record process to get names and addresses from the state DMV to locate people who might join a lawsuit against car dealerships for alleged unlawful administrative fees. The lawyers sent over 34,000 letters headed “ADVERTISING MATERIAL,” explained the pending suit, and enclosed a reply card asking recipients to indicate if they wanted to participate. Three South Carolina residents whose DMV information was used sued under the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), saying their personal records were obtained and used for bulk solicitation without consent. The District Court found the letters fell within the DPPA’s litigation exception; the Fourth Circuit called the mailings solicitations but held they were “inextricably intertwined” with litigation and thus exempt. The Supreme Court took the case to decide the exception’s scope.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether an attorney’s client solicitation is “use in connection with” litigation or “investigation in anticipation of litigation” under subsection (b)(4) of the DPPA. Looking to the statute’s text, purposes, and other exceptions, the Court concluded that (b)(4)’s examples involve court-related actions by officers of the court, not commercial solicitation. Reading (b)(4) to allow bulk solicitations would undermine the DPPA’s privacy goals and conflict with subsection (b)(12), which permits solicitation only when the person has given express consent. The Court held solicitation is not covered by (b)(4) but left open that legitimate investigative uses remain allowed. It remanded so lower courts can decide whether these particular letters had the predominant purpose of soliciting clients.

Real world impact

The decision prevents lawyers from relying on (b)(4) to mine DMV data for mass client solicitations without consent and forces courts to examine whether particular communications are predominately solicitations or investigatory. It preserves the DPPA’s consent protection for bulk marketing and leaves open other defenses and uses, including certain government or investigatory requests.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing the letters were tied to a concrete pending state proceeding and fit (b)(4); she warned the majority’s new rule creates difficult line-drawing and could interfere with state regulation of lawyers.