REVISED AUGUST 4, 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41083

SHARON TAYLOR; JAMES DOUGLAS BOOKER; LOWRY BRILEY;

TWILAH BROWN; JAMES D CLARY; ET AL

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

ACXIOM CORPORATION; CHOICEPOINT PUBLIC RECORDS DATABASE

TECH INC; CHOICEPOINT PUBLIC RECORDS, INC; CHOICEPOINT,

INC; CHOICEPOINT SERVICES, INC; SEISINT, INC; LEXISNEXIS REED

ELSEVIER, INC; CHEX SYSTEMS, INC, a Minnesota Corporation

Defendants - Appellees

____________________________________________________________

SHARON TAYLOR, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly

Situated; ET AL

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

ACS STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC, a New York Corporation;

GLOBAL 360 BGS, INC, a Texas Corporation; GILA CORPORATION, a

Texas Corporation; AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE

CORPORATION, a New York Corporation; SOUTHWESTERN BELL

TELEPHONE LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, doing business as

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company; AMERICAN MUNICIPAL

SERVICES CORPORATION; EUGENE R BUCCIARELLI; MICHAEL

DINAPOLI

Defendants - Appellees

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 14, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
2

___________________________________________________________

SHARON TAYLOR, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly

Situated; ET AL

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

TEXAS FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas

Insurance Company; INSURANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a

Texas Corporation; JI SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC, a Texas Corporation;

SOFTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC, a Florida Corporation; GLOBE LIFE &

ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Deleware Insurance Company;

HAWKEYE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC, a Texas Corporation; ISO

CLAIMS SERVICES, INC, a Delaware Corporation, doing business as

Insurance Information Exchange; UNITED TEACHER ASSOCIATES

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Insurance Company; SPARTAN

INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants - Appellees

___________________________________________________________

SHARON TAYLOR, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly

Situated; ET AL

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

SAFEWAY, INC, a Deleware Corporation; HEB GROCERY COMPANY, LP,

a Texas Limited Partnership; THE HEARST CORPORATION, a Delaware

Corporation, doing business as Houston Chronicle; SAFETY-USA

INSTITUTE, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company; U S INTERACTIVE,

INC, a Texas Corporation; THE TALBOT GROUP, INC, a Texas Corporation;

BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC, a Texas Corporation;

CARFAX, INC, a Pennsylvania Corporation; IMPACTINFO, INC, a Texas

Corporation; WISHLIST, LLC, Represented by Carolyn Lehamnn, Member

ABC DATA; AMERICAN STUDENT LIST CO, INC; ARISTOTLE

INTERNATIONAL, INC; DONALD R BERLINER, JR;

CONTINUEDED.COM, LLC; DENSPRI, LLC; DRIVER TRAINING

ASSOCIATES, INC; FEDERATED RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC;

HOUSEHOLD DRIVERS REPORT, INC; LEE FARISH COMPUTER
3

SERVICES, INC; PARADISE DEVELOPMENT, INC; D B STRINGFELLOW,

JR; TENANT TRACKER, INC

Defendants - Appellees

_________________________________________________________

SHARON TAYLOR, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly

Situated; ET AL

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

BIOMETRIC ACCESS COMPANY; CETEGY CHECK SERVICES, INC;

EMAGINENET TECHNOLOGIES, INC; REI DATA, INC, doing business as

Landata Information Services, Inc; LML PAYMENT SYSTEMS

CORPORATION; TELECHECK SERVICES, INC; ALLIED

RESIDENT/EMPLOYEE SCREENING SERVICE, INC; U S INTERACTIVE,

INC; ACXIOM RISK MITIGATION, INC; ADP SCREENING AND

SELECTION SERVICES, INC; AMERICAN DRIVING RECORDS, INC; COE

INFORMATION PUBLISHERS, INC; EXPLORE INFORMATION

SERVICES LLC; FEDCHEX LLC; JON LATORELLA; MARSHALL

SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC; REALTIME-ID LP; SOURCE DATA, INC,

Leslie Hanson for Deft; URAPI; PROPERTYINFO CORPORATION

Defendants - Appellees

__________________________________________________________

SHARON TAYLOR, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly

Situated; ET AL

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

FREEMAN PUBLISHERS, INC; BAYOUNET.COM, INC; CUSTOMER

CONTACT, INC; DEFENSIVEDRIVING.COM; CROSS-SELL, INC;

INFONATIONS, INC; REALTY COMPUTER SOLUTIONS, INC, doing

business as Real-Comp; THE SERVICE BUREAU; LIST MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS; JUST TEXAS; DOMININ ENTERPRISES; DATA BANK USA;

JOE WINKLEN CONSULTING; NATIONAL STATISTICAL SERVICE

CORPROATION; WARRANTY USA; RELIANT ENERGY, INC; TXU

BUSINESS; DALLAS COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
1 We note that although JI Speciality Services, Inc. is listed in the caption as a party

defendant-appellee, heretofore, on July 9, 2010, said JI Speciality Services, Inc., only, was

dismissed from these appeals under 5TH CIR. R. 42(b) pursuant to the stipulation of plaintiffsappellants and said JI Specialty Services, Inc. 

4

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

Today, we decide whether the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18

U.S.C., Chapter 123, §§ 2721-2725, allows states to turn over their entire drivers

motor vehicle (DMV) database at the request of certain private entities. This

case involves a class action seeking vast potential liquidated damages. For

reasons stated below, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action and

hold that the DPPA affords states discretion to disburse DMV records for a

permissible purpose under the statute.

This case began when the plaintiff-appellants, Sharon Taylor, et. al., filed

six putative class action suits alleging violations ofthe DPPA against more than

seventy-five defendants. The district court consolidated the six suits into the

instant case. Most defendants joined in filing a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), and 12(b)(1) (lack

of subject-matter jurisdiction). The district court granted the motion and

entered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit with prejudice (including the sua

sponte dismissal of the action as against defendants who had not joined the

motion). The plaintiffs now appeal.1

STANDARD OF REVIEW
2 Specifically, the proposed class definition included:

Each and every individual in the State of Texas whose name, address, driver

identification number, race and/or date of birth and/or sex are contained in

motor vehicle records obtained by Defendants from the State of Texas's

Department of Public Safety, without the express consent of such individuals,

from June 1, 2000, through the date of judgment herein.

Excluded from the class are persons who have expressly authorized the State of

Texas's Department of Public of Public Safety to provide third parties with their

"personal information" for any purpose; those persons whose information was

obtained for a permissible purpose defined by the DPPA; all employees,

including, but not limited to, Judges, Magistrate Judges, clerks and court staff

and personnel of the United States District Courts of the Eastern District of

Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United

States Supreme Court; their spouses and any minor children living in their

households and other persons within a third degree of relationship to any such

Federal Judge; and finally, the entire jury venire called to for jury service in

relation to this lawsuit.

3 Section 521.050(a) provides:

“(a) In addition to the provisions of this subchapter relating to the

5

This court reviews de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim. Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA, 369 F.3d 833, 839

(5th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that

is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).

We take the facts the plaintiff pleads as true. Id. at 1965. See also Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The court evaluates a 12(b)(1) motion de

novo as well. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this class action against various defendants alleging

misuse of DMV records in violations of the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2721–2725. The

plaintiffs represent a putative class of individuals with drivers licenses issued

in the State of Texas.2 Upon certification of a lawful purpose, Texas allows

individuals and companies to buy magnetic tapes of drivers licence records. TEX.

TRANSP. CODE. § 521.050.3 The DPPA regulates driver’s license records that
disclosure of driver’s license information on an individual, the department

[Department of Public Safety] may provide a purchaser with a magnetic tape of

the names, addresses, and dates of birth of all license holders that are contained

in the department’s basic driver’s license record file if the purchaser certifies in

writing that the purchaser is eligible to receive the information under Chapter

730.”

Section 730.002 of the TEX. TRANSP. CODE provides that:

“The purpose of this chapter [Chapterr 730] is to implement 18 U.S.C. Chapter

123 [the DPPA] and to protect the interest of an individual in the individual’s

personal privacy by prohibiting the disclosure and use of personal information

contained in motor vehicle records, except as authorized by the individual or by

law.”

Under § 730.007 the requesting party is to provide assurances to the Department of

Public Safety (DPS) that the information furnished will be used only for purposes that are

lawful under the DPPA. Permitted disclosures under § 730.007 extend only to name, address,

date of birth and driver’s license number. § 730.007(b). The requestor must represent that use

of personal information “will be strictly limited” to listed uses permitted under the DPPA

(excluding marketing, solicitations and surveys or uses based on individual consent), including

“(C) use in the normal course of business by a legitimate business or an

authorized agent of the business, but only:

(i)to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted

by the individualto the business or the agent ofthe business; and

(ii) if the information is not correct, to obtain the correct

information, for the sole purpose of preventing fraud by, pursuing

a legal remedy against, or recovering on a debt or security

interest against the individual.” § 730.007(a)(2)(C).

DPS regulations (37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 15.142) require a detailed form of agreement

by the requestor, specifying, inter alia, each authorized purpose for which the records are

requested and the like. 

Plaintiffs allege that defendants acquired the challenged information in bulk from the

Texas DPS. There is no allegation that such acquisition was other than in compliance with

Texas law. 

6

contain “personal information” defined to include the names, photographs, social

security numbers, drivers license numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, and

medical and disability information of individuals. 18 U.S.C. § 2725(3). Plaintiffs

allege that once a person certifies that they have a lawful purpose, the State of

Texas provides magnetic tapes with its entire database of driver’s license records

information on all holders of a Texas driver’s license. Like Texas, statutes (or
4 ALA. ADMIN. CODE r. 810-5-1.485(6)(c)(1); ALASKA ADMIN. CODE tit. 2, § 92.200(c),

available athttp://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http://wwwjnu01.legis.state.

ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/aac/query=[JUMP:'2+aac+92!2E200']/doc/{@1}?firsthit; ARIZ. REV.

STAT ANN. § 28-455(E); COLO. REV.STAT. § 42-1-206(3.7)(a) (West 2004); DEL. CODE ANN.tit.

21, § 305(f)(2) (2005); GA. COMP. R. & REGS. 375-3-8.03(10)(a) (2009); 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-

123(a) (West 2008); Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.300(2), (3) (West 2004); N.H. Code. Admin. R.

Ann. Saf-C 5202-08(a) (2009); N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 202(4)(a)–(b) (McKinney 2009); W. VA.

CODE § 91-8-7.14 (2009).

5 Section 2722(b) provides:

“(b) False representation.—It shall be unlawful for any person

to make false representation to obtain any personal information

from an individual’s motor vehicle record.”

Section 2723 provides:

“§ 2723. Penalties

(a) Criminal fine.—A person who knowingly violates

this chapter shall be fined under this title.

(b) Violations by State department of motor

vehicles.—Any State department of motor vehicles that has a

policy or practice of substantial noncompliance with this chapter

shall be subject to a civil penalty imposed by the Attorney

General of not more than $5,000 a day for each day of substantial

noncompliance.”

We also note in passing that as § 2723(a) makes knowing violation ofthe DPPA a crime,

and accordingly to the extent that violation of the DPPA is at issue in even a civil case, to the

extent of ultimate ambiguity in the statute’s meaning it must be construed under the rule of

lenity. See U.S. v.Thompson/Center ArmsCo., 112 S.Ct. 2102, 2110 (1992) (plurality opinion);

Crandon v. U.S., 110 S.Ct. 997, 1001-1102 (1990). 

7

regulations) in at least eleven other states expressly allow this type of bulk

distribution.4

Plaintiffs argue that obtaining personal information in this manner

violates the DPPA. Section 2722(a) provides:

“(a) Procurement for unlawful purposes.—It shall be

unlawful for any person knowingly to obtain or disclose personal

information, from a motor vehicle record, for any use not permitted

under section 2721(b) of this title.”5

The DPPA also provides a civil action against a “person who knowingly obtains,

discloses or uses personal information from a motor vehicle record for a purpose
6 Section 2724(b) provides:

“(b) Remedies.—The court may award—

(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages 

in the amount of $2,500; 

(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or

reckless disregard of the law;

(3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs

reasonably incurred; and 

(4) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the

court determines to be appropriate.”

8

not permitted under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a).6 To that end, the DPPA

lists several permissible uses in section 2721(b):

(1) For use by any government agency, including any court or law

enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private

person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency

in carrying out its functions.

(2) For use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver

safety and theft; motor vehicle emissions; motor vehicle product

alterations, recalls, or advisories; performance monitoring of motor

vehicles, motor vehicle parts and dealers; motor vehicle market

research activities, including survey research; and removal of

non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle

manufacturers.

(3) For use in the normal course of business by a legitimate business

or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only—

(A)to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted by

the individual to the business or its agents, employees, or

contractors; and

(B) if such information as so submitted is not correct or is no

longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for

the purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal remedies

against, or recovering on a debt or security interest against,

the individual.

(4) For use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or

arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or
9

before any self-regulatory body, including the service of process,

investigation in anticipation of litigation, and the execution or

enforcement of judgments and orders, or pursuant to an order of a

Federal, State, or local court.

(5) For use in research activities, and for use in producing statistical

reports, so long as the personal information is not published,

redisclosed, or used to contact individuals.

(6) For use by any insurer or insurance support organization, or by

a self-insured entity, or its agents, employees, or contractors, in

connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud activities,

rating or underwriting.

(7) For use in providing notice to the owners of towed or impounded

vehicles.

(8) For use by any licensed private investigative agency or licensed

security service for any purpose permitted under this subsection.

(9) For use by an employer or its agent or insurer to obtain or verify

information relating to a holder of a commercial driver's license that

is required under chapter 313 of title 49.

(10) For use in connection with the operation of private toll

transportation facilities.

(11) For any other use in response to requests for individual motor

vehicle records if the State has obtained the express consent of the

person to whom such personal information pertains.

(12) For bulk distribution for surveys, marketing or solicitations if

the State has obtained the express consent of the person to whom

such personal information pertains.

(13) For use by any requester, if the requester demonstrates it has

obtained the written consent of the individual to whom the

information pertains.

(14) For any other use specifically authorized under the law of the

State that holds the record, if such use is related to the operation of

a motor vehicle or public safety.

Section 2721 goes on to provide:

“(c) Resale or redisclosure.—an authorized recipient of

personal information (except a recipient under subsection (b)(11) or

(12)) may resell or redisclose the information only for a use permitted
7 Section 2721(c) concludes by stating: “Any authorized recipient (except a recipient

under subsection (b)(11)) that resells or rediscloses personal information covered by this

chapter must keep for a period of 5 years records identifying each person or entity that receives

information and the permitted purpose for which the information will be used and must make

such records available to the motor vehicle department upon request.” See also TEX. TRANSP.

CODE § 7303.013:

“(a) An authorized recipient of personal information may not resell or

redisclose the personal information in the identical or a substantially identical

format the personal information was disclosed to the recipient by the applicable

agency.

(b) An authorized recipient of personal information may resell or

redisclose the information only for a use permitted under Section 730.007.

(c) Any authorized recipient who resells or rediscloses personal

information obtained from any agency shall be required by that agency to:

(1) maintain for a period of not less than five years records

as to any person or entity receiving that information and the

permitted use for which it was obtained; and

(2) provide copies of those records to the agency on

request.

(d) A person commits an offense if the person violates this section. An

offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to

exceed $25,000.”

Similar requirements are stated in the recipient’s agreement with the DPS. See 37 TEX.

ADMIN. CODE § 15.143.

10

under subsection (b) (but not for uses under subsection (b)(11) or

(12)). An authorized recipient under subsection (b)(11) may resell or

redisclose personal information for any purpose. An authorized

recipient under subsection (b)(12) may resell or redisclose personal

information pursuant to subsection (b)(12).”7

Plaintiffs complain thatthe defendants in the instant case, pursuantto the

Texas statute, buy DMV records in bulk from the Texas DPS. These defendants

do not use all of the records immediately. They maintain databases or resell the

information. They potentially could use any record in the normal course of their

business for a permissible purpose under the DPPA. Plaintiffs do not complain

that the defendants actually used any of the records for a purpose other than the

ones listed in the DPPA. Instead, the plaintiffs complain that maintaining

records not actually used for the defendants’ stated purpose is itself an

impermissible purpose under the statute. Stated another way, plaintiffs assert
11

that buying the records in bulk with an expectation and purpose of valid potential

use is not a permissible use under the DPPA.

The plaintiffs characterize their suit as being against two types of

defendants: resellers and non-resellers of the drivers license records. Plaintiffs

argue that the DPPA requires resellers to have themselves made some

permissible use of the information before they may resell the information. Here,

the resellers took the personal information and sold it to third parties without

using the information themselves. The plaintiffs do not allege that the third

parties used the personal information for a purpose not permitted under the

DPPA. And, the plaintiffs argue that the non-resellers violated the act by

obtaining the personal information for purposes of“convenience and cost saving,”

and for continued future use, and these purposes are not permissible uses under

the DPPA. They argue that a permissible purpose is required by the DPPA for

each item of personal information contained in the entire bulk database obtained.

ANALYSIS

I. Failure to State a Claim

The DPPA creates liability when three elements are met: (1) the defendant

knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information; (2) from a motor

vehicle record; and (3) for a purpose not permitted. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a); Thomas

v. George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King, and Stevens, P.A., 525 F.3d

1107, 1111 (11th Cir. 2008).”The plain meaning of the third factor is that it is

only satisfied if shown that obtainment, disclosure, or use was not for a purpose

enumerated under § 2721(b).” Id. (emphasis added). See also Reno v. Condon,

120 S.Ct. 666, 670 (2000) (The section 2724 cause of action is for knowlingly

obtaining, disclosing, or using the information “for a use other than those

specifically permitted by the DPPA”). 
8 Other than 2721(b)(11) and (b)(12), the list of permissible uses does not refer to bulk

or individual records. The statute does say, however, that “[p]ersonal information . . . may be

disclosed as follows:” before listing the permissible uses. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b). Section 2725(3)

states:

“(3) ‘personal information’ means information that identifies an

individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver

identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone

number, and medical or disability information, but does notinclude information

on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver’s status.”

Congress sets forth rules of construction that explain, unless context indicates otherwise,

“words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1

U.S.C. § 1. It seems well established, however, that this particular cannon is rarely applied

12

A. Non-Resellers

We first address whether the non-resellers obtained personal information

for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA. The non-resellers buy DMV records

in bulk. Soon thereafter, they may use some of the records for a purpose

permitted under the DPPA. The plaintiffs argue that as to the remaining records

the non-resellers do not use them for a permissible purpose. In other words, the

question is whether the statute allows bulk distribution of the records. 

We hold that this type of bulk obtainment does not violate the DPPA. In

interpreting statutes, this Court begins with the text of the statute. Phillips v.

Marine Concrete Structures, 895 F.2d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir. 1990). Of the fourteen

expressly listed permissible uses, only once does Congress limit a permissible use

to individual motor records. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(11) (“For any other use in

response to requests for individual motor vehicle records ifthe State has obtained

the express consent of the person to whom such personal information pertains.”).

And of these fourteen permissible uses, only once does Congress limit a

permissible use to bulk distribution. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(12) (“For bulk

distribution for surveys, marketing or solicitations if the State has obtained the

express consent ofthe person to whom such personal information pertains.”). For

the remaining twelve permissible uses, the statute seems to have more than one

reasonable interpretation: individual release, bulk release, or both.8 See in re
and only when doing so necessarily carries out the evident intent of Congress. United States

v. Hayes, 129 S. Ct. 1079, 1085 n.5 (2009) (refusing to apply the rule because it conflicts with

congressional intent).

13

Rogers, 513 F.3d 212, 226 (5th Cir. 2008) (an ambiguous statute is susceptible to

more than one reasonable interpretation). 

It does not make sense that Congress would expressly limit states to

individual distribution with one permissible use if Congress intended to limit all

of the permissible uses to individual distribution. If Congress intended only

individual distribution, one would expect either Congress to expressly limit all

uses or, at least, to remain silent on the matter. Likewise, if Congress intended

only bulk distribution, it makes no sense to expressly limit one of the fourteen

uses to bulk distribution and not the others. The text of the statute strongly

indicates that it allows both individual and bulk distribution. Bulk distribution

is limited in only the instance of use for surveys, marketing or soliciations

(plaintiffs do not allege such use here). The plain inference is that Congress

allowed bulk distribution for other uses permitted by section 2721(b). Arif v.

Mukasey, 509 F.3d 677, 681 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Where Congress includes particular

language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same

Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in

the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”).

The purpose of the statute supports the conclusion that Congress intended

bulk distribution. Representatives originally proposed the DPPA as a crime

fighting measure. 139 CONG. REC. S15745-01, S15762 (1993) (Statement of Rep.

Boxer). Congress originally passed it (as an amendment to the Crime Control

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) in response to the murder of actress Rebecca

Schaeffer at the hands of a stalker. 140 CONG. REC. H2518-01, H2526 (1994)

(Statement of Rep. Goss). This stalker used DMV records to find Schaeffer’s

unlisted home address. Id. The legislative history reflects the concern for
9 E.g., The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1993: Hearing on H.R. 3365 Before the

Subcomm. on Civil & Constitutional Rights of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 103rd Cong.

(1994) (Statement of Rep. Moran), 1994 WL 212698 (listing examples of violence committed

after obtaining DMV records). None of these instances involved bulk distribution of DMV data.

10 The “opt out” provisions of the original legislation with respect to bulk distribution

for the purpose of use in surveys, marketing or solicitations in § 2721(b)(12) (and the similar

“opt out” provisions of § 2721(b)(11)) were changed to the “opt in” provisions now in §

2721(b)(11) and (12) by the October 1999 amendments to the DPPA. Public Law 106-69.113

Stat. 986 (October 9, 1999).

Congressman Moran’s February 4, 1994 statement also explains the reason for

restrictions on direct marketing use, viz:

“Most states sell DMV information in list form with personal identifiers (name,

address, and/or social security number) to direct marketers for commercial

purposes, but only five have a working “opt-out” system (a system allowing

licensees to restrict the sale of their personal information). . . . 

. . . 

While the release of this information to direct marketers does not pose any

inherent safety risks to people, it does present, to some people, an invasion of

privacy. If you review the way in which people are classified by direct

marketers based on DMV information you can see why some individuals might

14

victims of crimes committed using DMV records.9 The totality of the legislative

history clearly reflects that Congress did not intend to suppress legitimate

business uses of motor vehicle records. Thus, Congressman James P. Moran,

Eighth District of Virginia, the sponsor of the DPPA in the House, in his

February 4, 1994 statement on the DPPA before the House Judiciary Committee

Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, explained:

“Careful consideration was given to the common uses now made of

this information and great efforts were made to ensure that those

uses were allowed under this bill. Among those who will continue to

have unfettered access are federal and state governments and their

contractors, for use in auto recalls, by businesses (such as an

insurance company) to verify the accuracy of personal information

submitted by a licensee, for use in any civil or criminal proceeding,

in research activities, and in marketing activities as long as the

individual has been given the opportunity to opt out. The bill would

allow DMVs to continue to sell DMV information in bulk as long as

every driver in that state had been given the opportunity to restrict

the sale of their name for marketing purposes.” (emphasis added).

1994 WL 212698 (F.D.C.H.) at 4.10
object to their personal information being sold.” Id. at 2.

15

Statements on the DPPA along the same lines were made by Congressman

Moran and Congressman Gross on April 20, 1994 before the House. 140 Cong.

Rec. H 2518-01, 1994 WL 140035 at 14, 15, 24.

Plaintiffs’ reading of the DPPA leads to essentially absurd results. At a

checkoutline at a grocery store or similar establishment, when a customer wishes

to pay by (or cash) a check, and presents a driver’s license as identification, it is

obviously wholly impractical to require the merchant for each such customer to

submit a separate individual request to the state motor vehicle department to

verify the accuracy ofthe personal information submitted by the customer, under

section 2721(b)(3). Any such process would obviously take way too long to be of

any use to either the customer or the merchant, and would moreover flood the

state department with more requests than it could possibly handle. So, the

merchant buys the state department’s entire data base and from it extracts on

that occasion that particular customer’s information, and later performs the same

task as to the next such customer in the line. Plaintiffs would have us hold that

the merchant violates the DPPA by acquiring the data base even though every

single actual use made of it is an authorized use under section 2721(b), so long

as there is at least one name in the data base as to which no actual use is made.

We reject that contention.

As the State of Texas points out in its amicus brief, under the plaintiffs

approach, an attorney who buys a set legal reporters does not do so for the

purpose of use for legal research unless that attorney plans on reading every

opinion in every volume of those reporters. A lawyer will never read all the

opinions in all 1,000 volumes of Federal Second (and may likely never read

anything in at least a few of the volumes). But he or she still buys the reporter

setfor the purpose of legal research. We hold that the text and legislative history
11 The plaintiffs suggest that Congress intended the states to perform a gate-keeping

function and distributing in bulk hinders the states’ ability to keep track of these records. See

Locate.Plus.com v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609, 617 (Iowa 2002). The statute,

however, expressly contemplates resale ofthe informationonce distributed. § 2721(c). Further,

it creates a private right of action. § 2724. Resale makes it more difficult for the states to

monitor use of the information. The individual right of action allows persons other than the

state to check use of these records. The Locate opinion’s “gate-keeping” theory is not

persuasive of a congressional intent to preclude bulk distribution where actual use permitted

under § 2721(b) is intended and no actual use not permitted under § 2721(b) is intended.

12 In fact, solid reasons exist why Congress likely intended bulk distribution to resellers.

Congress intended persons use these records for purposes such as preventing fraud when

cashing checks. E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(3). These are such uses that practically could not

be performed individually, not only from the perspective of private companies but from the

perspective of the states. For example, a credit card company may approve more than

nineteen million credit card applications per year. Personal Information Acquired by the

Government Information Resellers: Is There Need for Improvement?, J. Hearing Before the

Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law and the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the

Comm. on the Judiciary H.R., 109th Cong. 65–66 (2006). Ninety thousand applications are

processed daily. Id. That alone may be 90,000 requests that a state would have to

individually verify every day.

16

dictate that when a person obtains motor vehicle records in bulk for one of the

permissible uses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b), and does not actually use, or intend

to use, any of the information in a manner prohibited by section 2721(b), then

that person does not obtain the records for a purpose not permitted under

Chapter 123 of Title 18.11

B. Resellers

We now address the plaintiffs’ claims against the resellers. The plaintiffs

alleged that reseller defendants must first have themselves made a permissible

use for the DMV records before they could resell to others under 18 U.S.C. §

2721(c). In their briefs and at oral argument, the plaintiffs could not articulate,

and we could not find, any reason why Congress would require resellers to

actually use the records before selling the records.12 Instead, plaintiffs simply

relied on their reading of the text to produce that result. But cf. Waggoner v.

Gonzales, 488 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2007) (“We are mindful of the common

mandate of statutory construction to avoid absurd results.”). Not convinced, the
13 In argument, plaintiff also relies on two cases. See Locate.Plus.Com, Inc. v. Iowa

Dep’t of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2002); Roberts v. The Source for Pub. Data, No. 08-

4167-CV-C-NKL, 2008 WL 5234675 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2008) (unpublished op.). Neither are

binding precedent. Locate.Plus.Com observed that each permissible use exceptionlisteda user

and a specific use for the information. Locate.Plus.Com., Inc., 650 N.W.2d at 617. It reasoned,

therefore, Congress intended dissemination only to a “permissible user.” Id. Just because the

statute allows only certain types of people to use the information does not mean that the

statute limits possession to those same individuals. The text of the statute contemplates uses

and users in the list of exceptions; it contemplates resellers in a different subsection. 18 U.S.C.

17

district court held that plaintiffs had no obtainment claim against the reseller

defendants under the DPPA based on the reasoning in Russell v. Choicepoint

Servs. Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 450, 454–61 (E.D. La. 2004). It observed that section

2721(c) allowed “authorized recipients”to resell information. Id. This section did

not require “authorized recipients” to also be authorized users under 18 U.S.C.

§ 2721(b). Therefore, authorized recipients did not need an authorized use before

they could resell the information to those who did have a permissible use.

The plaintiffs counter that authorized recipients must have an authorized

use because the statute expressly refers to certain authorized recipients as being

recipients “under” a permissible use. For example:

“An authorized recipient . . . (except a recipient under subsection

(b)(11) or (12)) . . .

An authorized recipient under subsection (b)(11) . . .

An authorized recipient under subsection (b)(12) . . .”

18 U.S.C. § 2721(c). Like the district court, we hold that the only reasonable

construction of “authorized recipient” requires no actual use. Instead, an

authorized recipient is authorized to resell to individuals for one or more of the

specific purposes under section 2721(b). See Russell v. Choicepoint Servs., Inc.,

300 F. Supp. 2d 450, 455–57 (E.D. La. 2004) (The court goes into great detail in

its careful analysis of “authorized recipient.”). 

Our construction ofthe statute alleviates the concerns the plaintiffs believe

exist.13 This construction allows “authorized recipient” to mean something
§ 2721(b), (c). Roberts, on the other hand, makes a statutory construction argument that

practically writes the reseller provision out of statute. See Roberts, 2008 WL 5234675, at *4

(reasoning that section 2722 prohibits obtaining information for any purpose other than a

permissible use listed in 2721(b) would make no sense if a reseller can obtain information for

a purpose other than one listed in 2721(b) — to resell information). Moreover, reselling to an

authorized actual user is not itself an actual use.

18

different than one who has a permissible actual use. See Corley v. United States,

129 S. Ct. 1558, 1566 (2009) (a court should give each word effect). It also gives

meaning to the language of section 2721(c) that refers to recipients “under”

subsection (b). 18 U.S.C. § 2721(c). An authorized recipient would be “under

subsection (b)(12),” for example, if the State gives him the data for the purpose

of reselling it to a person who uses it for marketing in conformity with (b)(12).

There is no allegation that any of the defendants is not an authorized recipient

under Texas law, which plainly provides for such resellers in a manner consistent

with the DPPA. Moreover, the DPPA’s criminal and civil sanctions police

unauthorized recipients and users without a permissible actual use. 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2723, 2724. 

The Department of Justice issued an advisory opinion that supports this

conclusion. On October 9, 1998, the Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney

General, in the Civil Division, issued an advisory letter opinion responding to the

question of whether Massachusetts may release personal information to a

commercial distributor who disseminates the information only to other

authorized recipients or entities that use the information solely for authorized

purposes. Unpublished Letter from Robert C. McFetridge, Special Counsel to the

Assistant Attorney General,to Peter Sacks, Office ofthe Attorney Generalfor the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (on file with this Court and as a part of the

record below). This advisory opinion concluded that the DPPA allowed for such

releases. Id. Because the Attorney General is expressly charged with imposing

civil sanctions against States having a policy or practice of substantial

noncompliance with the DPPA, this advisory opinion serves as persuasive
14 We further note that the 1998 Department of Justice opinion is inconsistent with any

notion that bulk distribution is itself necessarily prohibited by the DPPA, and thus likewise

fully supports the position of the defendants non-resellers.

15 See also James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d 551, 562 n.9 (5th Cir. 2001) (“In cases in

which statutory standing is involved, we may address statutory standing before Article III

standing.”).

Assuming, arguendo, that we also need to address Article III standing, that too is

present. It is undisputed that the DPPA protects from certain uses or disclosures personal

information of plaintiffs and creates a federal cause of action for same, and that such personal

information of plaintiffs was actually included in the challenged bulk distributions by Texas

DPS. Moreover, plaintiffs’ claim that such bulk distributions (including the personal

information of these plaintiffs) are prohibited, and constitute a disclosure or use made illegal,

by the DPPA which affords plaintiffs a federal cause of action for such disclosure or use oftheir

personal information, though clearly without merit, is nevertheless not wholly insubstantial

and frivolous, and hence gives the district court jurisdiction to decide whether or not the DPPA

does preclude such distributions or uses. See Bell v. Hood, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776-77 (1946).

19

support for the conclusion that a reseller may obtain DMV records and sell them

withoutfirstitself actually using or intending to use those records. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 2723(b), note 4 supra. Moreover, since that Department of Justice opinion the

statute has been amended (in October 1999) without any change which would

alter that result.14

II. Standing

We need not address the statutory standing issue because we have affirmed

the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Verizon Commc’n Inc. v. Law

offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 124 S.Ct. 872, 883 n.5 (2004) (citing Steel Co. v.

citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1013 n.2 (1998)).15 While the

district court did dismiss sua sponte some defendants who did notjoin the motion

to dismiss, there is no prejudice to the plaintiffs in affirming the judgment in its

entirety because the plaintiffs make the same allegations against all defendants.

CONCLUSION
20

We affirm the judgment of the district court. We hold that a person who

buys DMV records in bulk does so for the purpose of making permissible actual

use of information therein under 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b), even ifthat person does not

actually use every single item of information therein. We also hold that the plain

language of 18 U.S.C. § 2721 allows resale of DMV records to one who is

authorized and proposes to make actual use thereof as permitted under section

2721(b) notwithstanding that the seller does not actually use or intend to use the

records before resale. 

AFFIRMED
21

DENNIS, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I fully agree with the majority’s analysis of the Driver’s Privacy Protection

Act and its conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. However, I believe that Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 93-101 (1998), requires us to decide whether the

plaintiffs have Article III standing. “In [Steel Co.], [the Supreme] Court adhered

to the rule that a federal court may not hypothesize subject-matter jurisdiction

for the purpose of deciding the merits.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

U.S. 574, 577 (1999). See also, e.g., United States v. Tex. Tech Univ., 171 F.3d

279, 287 (5th Cir. 1999); 13 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and

Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters § 3522, at 142 (3d ed. 2008).

The plaintiffs in this case have Article III standing for the reason stated in

footnote 15 of the majority opinion: they allege that the defendants have used

their personal information in a manner that is prohibited by the DPPA. Thus,

their allegations fulfill the three requirements of the “irreducible constitutional

minimum of standing”: an injury in fact(i.e.,the invasion of an interest which the

plaintiffs argue is legally protected), which was caused by the defendants and

which would be redressed by a judgment against the defendants. See Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). “It is firmly established . . .

that the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not

implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89. Thus, our

holding that the plaintiffs have failed to state a valid claim under the DPPA does

not alter the fact that the plaintiffs have Article III standing.