Driver records and lawyer ads
Maracich v. Michael Eugene Spears
In brief
Lawyers cannot use the DPPA’s litigation exception to recruit clients with driver records, and the Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 17, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- Michael Spears and other lawyers used South Carolina DMV records to contact potential plaintiffs for lawsuits alleging that car dealers charged unlawful fees.
- Who it affects
- Lawyers using DMV information to recruit clients cannot rely on the DPPA’s litigation exception for that purpose.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act’s litigation exception does not permit lawyers to use driver information to solicit clients; it wiped out the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (vacated and remanded).
Michael Spears and other lawyers represented buyers in a case alleging that South Carolina car dealers charged unlawful administrative fees. The lawyers obtained DMV information about buyers and sent letters asking whether they had been charged fees and inviting them to join the case.
The DPPA limits how personal information in state motor-vehicle records may be used, while allowing some uses tied to court cases.
Question presented
1. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that lawyers who obtain, disclose, or use personal information to find potential plaintiff for a group action are protected by the litigation exception of the DPPA? 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in reaching the conclusion that a lawyer who files an group action before finding plaintiffs may use DPPA-protected personal information to find plaintiffs for that action through a direct mail advertising campaign?
What the Court decided
Holding
An attorney’s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the (b)(4) litigation exception. 675 F. 3d 281, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
The Court said that recruiting clients is not a permitted purpose under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act’s litigation exception.
The vote
From the opinions
“I would affirm that sound judgment.”
What's next
The case returns to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings, with its earlier ruling wiped out.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Maracich
Opinion added: Maracich
More questions
- What did the four justices who disagreed say?
- They said the lawyers’ requests for DMV information and their use of it fit the litigation exception; Justice Ginsburg said she would have kept the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in place.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.