Maracich v. Spears

Background

A group of trial lawyers obtained names and addresses from the South Carolina motor vehicle department and sent mass mailings to over 34,000 car buyers to recruit plaintiffs for lawsuits about dealer fees. Several South Carolina residents whose information was used without consent sued under the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), which generally bans disclosure of DMV information unless a listed exception applies. The lawyers argued their mailings fit the DPPA’s litigation exception for uses “in connection with” legal proceedings.

Reasoning

The Court examined the DPPA’s text and overall structure and concluded that the ordinary commercial solicitation of clients is not a use covered by the (b)(4) litigation exception. The opinion explains that (b)(4)’s examples (service of process, investigation in anticipation of litigation, court orders) relate to actions taken as part of litigation, not to businesslike client-getting. Congress expressly treated bulk solicitation separately and required consent for it under (b)(12). The Court therefore held that solicitation is excluded from (b)(4) and remanded so lower courts can decide whether these particular letters had the “predominant purpose” of soliciting clients.

Real world impact

The ruling protects individuals’ DMV privacy by preventing attorneys from using DMV databases to send mass recruitment letters without consent. It does not categorically bar attorneys from obtaining DMV data for legitimate investigatory uses tied to a specific, imminent case. The case is remanded for courts to determine whether the lawyers’ mailings were primarily solicitation and, if so, whether DPPA liability and damages follow.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the lawyers’ requests and letters were closely tied to an actual representative lawsuit and thus should fall within the litigation exception, warning the majority’s rule could hamper legitimate case investigation and aggregation.