Webtrends Tracking Code
 
UK Home >  OUT-LAW News >  News Archive >  2006 >  September 2006 >  Bank pays out $50 million for buying drivers' data

Bank pays out $50 million for buying drivers' data

OUT-LAW News, 11/09/2006

A bank which purchased the names and addresses of more than 650,000 people in the US has been ordered to pay a $50 million fine. The case was brought by a Florida resident against Fidelity Bank and also included the Electronic Privacy Information Centre.

A court in the US has ordered the payment because it said that the bank had violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act. That federal law was enacted in order to protect drivers from being tracked down through their driving records.

The law was based on a Californian state law which was passed after the actress Rebecca Schaeffer was killed by an obsessed fan who tracked her down through driving records.

James Kehoe sued the bank for its purchase of the records, which he said it used to market car loans to drivers in Florida. EPIC joined the suit at a later date.

A district court in Florida found that Kehoe had to prove actual damage to him before he could be awarded financial damages. He appealed that decision and won.

Kehoe's class action lawsuit said that Fidelity Federal Bank and Trust had managed to purchase the data over a three year period to 2003 for just $5,656. EPIC filed a 'friend of the court' brief in support of Kehoe's case.

"A narrow interpretation of the DPPA that does not award liquidated damages would create a risk that commercial data brokers will continue to acquire and resell personal information from motor vehicle records," said EPIC's brief. "Similarly, a private investigator might continue to access motor vehicle records unless there is a strong default punishment. Plaintiffs, unless they manufacture losses, face hurdles in showing that merely accessing the motor vehicle record or receiving junk mail constitutes an actionable harm.

"What people suffer from the unauthorized distribution of their private information is a privacy violation of a nature so elusive to quantify that it explains the DPPA's provision of a fixed minimum sum as appropriate compensation," said the brief.

EPIC argued that unless there were financial damages awarded, the DPPA's usefulness as an anti-stalker law would be hampered. "Without liquidated damages, an individual whose personal information was purchased by a stalker or potential attacker would not be entitled to recovery until they were actually harmed," it said.

 

 

OUT-LAW Recommends

Data Protection training
We offer training courses on Data Protection and Freedom of Information laws

Winner at 2008 Webby Awards

OUT-LAW star: link to the home page
Disclaimer: This was printed from OUT-LAW.COM, a service of international law firm Pinsent Masons. We hope you find this content useful. However, please note that nothing in this document constitutes specific legal advice. You should consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter. Any questions, please email info@out-law.com.