## Facts

- An online information service operated by Docusearch, Inc. sold personal information about third parties to paying customers.
- Liam Youens, who stalked Amy Lynn Boyer, purchased Boyer’s birth date, Social Security number, and home and work addresses through the service.
- Docusearch obtained Boyer’s work address through a deceptive “pretext” telephone call to her workplace and then provided it to Youens.
- Youens later shot and killed Boyer as she left work.
- Boyer’s estate sued Docusearch for wrongful death and related claims, including negligence-based theories and privacy torts.
- A federal district court, with material facts undisputed for purposes of summary judgment, certified questions of New Hampshire law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a private investigator or information broker owes a legal duty to a third party whose personal information is sold when misuse leading to criminal harm is reasonably foreseeable.
2. Whether selling a person’s Social Security number obtained without the person’s knowledge or consent can support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.
3. Whether selling a work address obtained through a deceptive pretext phone call can support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.
4. Whether selling such personal data supports a privacy claim for commercial appropriation.
5. Whether obtaining and selling a work address by pretext calling can constitute an unfair or deceptive act under the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act.

## Decision

- The court held that an information broker/private investigator may owe a duty to exercise reasonable care in disclosing personal information when disclosure could foreseeably lead to criminal misconduct.
- The court indicated that disclosure of a Social Security number obtained without the subject’s knowledge or consent may support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, depending on the private nature of the information and the offensiveness of the conduct.
- The court rejected treating the sales of the Social Security number and work address as “commercial appropriation” of the victim’s identity.
- The court treated pretext phone calls used to obtain information as deceptive practices covered by the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence duty may arise for information brokers and private investigators to use reasonable care in disclosing personal information when foreseeable misuse creates a risk of criminal harm.
- Intrusion upon seclusion can be based on obtaining or disclosing highly sensitive personal information in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Commercial appropriation generally requires exploitation of a person’s identity (such as name or likeness) for the defendant’s benefit in a way distinct from selling information for its informational value; mere sale of data, without more, is insufficient.
- Deceptive “pretext” methods used to obtain personal information can constitute unfair or deceptive conduct under the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act.

## Conclusion

The court’s answers to the certified questions established that data brokers may owe a duty of reasonable care to people whose personal information they sell when criminal misuse is foreseeable, permitted intrusion-upon-seclusion claims tied to disclosure of highly sensitive identifiers like Social Security numbers, rejected commercial-appropriation liability based only on selling information, and treated pretext calling as a deceptive practice under the state consumer protection statute.


Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148, 816 A.2d 1001 (N.H. 2003)