Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Co.

In action alleging that defendant violated Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (Act) by establishing online “instant quote” feature on its auto insurance website that disclosed applicant’s driver’s license number in its auto-fill program, where applicant merely supplied name and address, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing, where plaintiffs could not identify concrete injury arising out of said disclosure of their driver’s license numbers. While one plaintiff asserted that she was required to purchase credit-monitoring service because of said disclosure, and another plaintiff asserted that fraudulent brokerage account was registered in his name after said disclosure, plaintiffs failed to show how disclosure of driver’s license number played any role either in their credit or in opening of brokerage account. Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegation that said disclosure caused them worry and anxiety was insufficient to establish concrete injury. Similarly, plaintiff could not establish concrete injury arising out of fact that two bogus unemployment claims were generated in New York after said disclosure, where there was no showing that said claims required disclosure of driver’s license number. Fact that Act allows “liquidated damages” did not confer standing on instant plaintiffs. (Dissent filed.)