Opinion ID: 78521
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Imagitas acting on behalf of the Florida DHSMV?

Text: Having determined that the DriverSource program was a legitimate agency function, we now turn to whether Imagitas was a private entity acting on behalf of the Florida DHSMV. See 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1). Because the phrase on behalf of is not defined in the DPPA, we again look to its ordinary meaning. See Garcia, 540 F.3d at 1246. On behalf of means as the agent of or as representative of. Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 83 (1987). In the district court, Plaintiff-appellants argued that Imagitas was not acting on Florida's behalf. Plaintiff-appellants raised multiple arguments asserting that Florida's contract with Imagitas did not require advertising, that Imagitas acted outside of its contract, and that Imagitas was an independent contractor rather than Florida's agent. The district court rejected these arguments. On appeal, plaintiff-appellants have not restated these arguments nor contended that the district court wrongly decided this issue. Rather, plaintiff-appellants now claim that Imagitas acted on behalf of its advertising clients rather than the Florida DHSMV. We disagree. Florida Statute § 283.58, authorizes state agencies to [e]nter into agreements with private vendors to publish or produce public information materials, financed by the vendor's right to select, sell, and place advertising.... Fla. Stat. § 283.58(1)(a). Florida's contract with Imagitas was such an agreement. Prior to entering into its contract with Imagitas, Florida issued an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN), which invited private companies to bid on a state contract for furnishing and mailing notices to renew vehicle registrations in containers including public information and advertising. See ITN No. 010-04. The ITN requested proposals by which the advertising revenue would secure the distribution of public information materials free to the public, and at no cost to the state.... ITN No. 010-04 § 4.7. This evidence demonstrates that the Florida DHSMV actively sought a private entity to administer this program on its behalf. While Imagitas developed and submitted details for the DriverSource program, the initial concept was Florida's design. Moreover, Florida retained control over the entire DriverSource program. Florida never relinquished ownership of its motor vehicle records and [t]he entire advertising program [was] subject to DHSMV review. Technical Proposal § 2.6.2.6. Florida could even require the inclusion of public service information of its choosing. Thus, Imagitas's administration of the DriverSource program was on behalf of the Florida DHSMV. Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that Imagitas was a private entity acting on behalf of the Florida DHSMV in carrying out its functions. As such, Imagitas obtained drivers' personal information for a permissible use under section 2721(b)(1) of the DPPA.