## Facts

- The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721–2725, generally bars disclosure of personal information from motor-vehicle records without the individual’s express consent after June 1, 2000.
- From June 1, 2000 to June 20, 2003, Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust bought, monthly, names and addresses from Florida’s motor-vehicle agency for individuals who had registered new vehicles or relatively recent used vehicles in certain counties.
- Fidelity used the information for direct-mail marketing to solicit auto-loan refinancing business.
- James Kehoe alleged the disclosures and acquisitions violated the DPPA’s post-2000 opt-in requirement because drivers had not given express permission.
- Kehoe sought liquidated damages of $2,500 per violation under 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(1), raising the prospect of very large aggregate statutory exposure.

## Issues

1. Whether a DPPA plaintiff must prove “actual damages” as a prerequisite to recovering the statute’s “not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500” under 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(1).
2. Whether the DPPA’s remedial scheme permits a minimum per-violation award for privacy violations that may be difficult to quantify in traditional damages.

## Decision

- The district court entered summary judgment for Fidelity, concluding that § 2724(b)(1) requires proof of actual damages and that Kehoe had not shown such damages.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that a plaintiff need not prove actual damages to recover the DPPA’s $2,500 liquidated damages.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari but dismissed the writ as improvidently granted, leaving the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment in place without a merits ruling by the Supreme Court.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(1), “actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500” establishes a minimum liquidated-damages award that is available even if actual damages are unproven.
- Reading the liquidated-damages clause as contingent on actual damages would negate the “not less than” minimum and weaken the statute’s enforcement mechanism for privacy violations.
- The DPPA’s remedial structure (liquidated damages, punitive damages for willful or reckless conduct, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable relief) supports statutory minimum recovery to deter and redress unlawful disclosures of personal information.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of certiorari as improvidently granted produced no merits precedent, but it left intact the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that DPPA plaintiffs may recover $2,500 per violation in liquidated damages without proving actual damages.


Fidelity Fed. Bank & Tr. v. Kehoe, 547 U.S. 1051 (2006)