Fidelity Federal Bank and Trust v. Kehoe
United States Supreme Court
547 U.S. 1051 (2006)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sold the personal information of several hundred thousand individuals to the Fidelity Federal Bank and Trust (Fidelity) (defendant). The transaction cost Fidelity only a few thousand dollars. Fidelity purchased the information to solicit drivers regarding a possible refinancing of their car loans. In response, a group of drivers (plaintiffs) sued Fidelity for violating the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), which regulated disclosure and obtainment of drivers’ personal information. Florida had not amended its law after passage of the DPPA, so the drivers had not yet given consent for the transaction, as the DPPA required. The DPPA imposed $2,500 per violation of its provisions. Because of this error, Fidelity faced possible liability in the billions of dollars due to the several-thousand-dollar transaction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity, reasoning that the DPPA required the drivers to prove actual damages and that there was insufficient evidence for these damages. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded. Fidelity petitioned the United States Supreme Court to determine whether the drivers needed to prove actual damages under the DPPA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
