-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Lawsuit: Driver License Abuse (for more than Test Drive purpose)
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Hank, thanks for the answer!
I think the court would take great emphasis on plaintiff signature regardless on the claim that they didn't know what they signed for.
g-force
Member
Plaintiff Wayne Skiles is the same guy who won a model X for referrals and then sold it and it ended up at Ford. Ford Buys Model X for $200k, Once Owned by Tesla Referral Program Winner
A 71 year old coin dealer Elon Musk Pokes Fun as Ford Overpays for Tesla Model X: "Resale Value Is Holding" | Inverse
An odd bird.
A 71 year old coin dealer Elon Musk Pokes Fun as Ford Overpays for Tesla Model X: "Resale Value Is Holding" | Inverse
An odd bird.
Here's a funny sentence:
"At all times viewing the iPad, Plaintiff believed his license was being electronically verified, and that once complete, his personal information other than phone number and email would be erased and not retained for any purpose."
On what basis did you believe that? Was that stated in the text of the Ipad? Did it come to you in a dream?
rxlawdude
Active Member
This case looks like a loser.
18 USC Sec 2721 allows the release of driver license information:
A Tesla is arguably worth at least $75,000. I sure as hell would want to confirm information to ensure I wasn't going to be scammed.
18 USC Sec 2721 allows the release of driver license information:
(b) (3)For use in the normal course of business by a legitimate business or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only—
...
(13) For use by any requester, if the requester demonstrates it has obtained the written consent of the individual to whom the information pertains
(c)Resale or Redisclosure.—
An authorized recipient of personal information (except a recipient under subsection (b)(11) or (12)) may resell or redisclose the information only for a use permitted under subsection (b) ... Any authorized recipient ... that resells or rediscloses personal information covered by this chapter must keep for a period of 5 years records identifying each person or entity that receives information and the permitted purpose for which the information will be used and must make such records available to the motor vehicle department upon request.
(A) to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted by the individual to the business or its agents, employees, or contractors; and
(B) if such information as so submitted is not correct or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for the purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or recovering on a debt or security interest against, the individual.
(B) if such information as so submitted is not correct or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for the purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or recovering on a debt or security interest against, the individual.
(13) For use by any requester, if the requester demonstrates it has obtained the written consent of the individual to whom the information pertains
(c)Resale or Redisclosure.—
An authorized recipient of personal information (except a recipient under subsection (b)(11) or (12)) may resell or redisclose the information only for a use permitted under subsection (b) ... Any authorized recipient ... that resells or rediscloses personal information covered by this chapter must keep for a period of 5 years records identifying each person or entity that receives information and the permitted purpose for which the information will be used and must make such records available to the motor vehicle department upon request.
A Tesla is arguably worth at least $75,000. I sure as hell would want to confirm information to ensure I wasn't going to be scammed.
That code section is about when it is illegal for a sate DMV to reveal the information in its records (ie driving record and similar information). It has nothing to do with businesses copying information off of a driver's license that is provided to the business by the licenseholder and then using that information for marketing purposes.
I'm not saying that this suit makes a valid point. Just that the cited code section isn't relevant.
rxlawdude
Active Member
Well, then the case is in trouble since that's the first (and repeated) allegedly violated statute "18 USC Sec 2721 et. seq." cited in the complaint. Nonetheless, I suspect not much of a problem for Tesla.
But for grins, here's 18 USC 2725 that most definitely DOES apply to Tesla:
In this chapter—
(1) “motor vehicle record” means any record that pertains to a motor vehicle operator’s permit, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration, or identification card issued by a department of motor vehicles;
(2) “person” means an individual, organization or entity, but does not include a State or agency thereof;
(3) “personal information” means information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver’s status.
(4) “highly restricted personal information” means an individual’s photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability information; and
(5) “express consent” means consent in writing, including consent conveyed electronically that bears an electronic signature
(2) “person” means an individual, organization or entity, but does not include a State or agency thereof;
(3) “personal information” means information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver’s status.
(4) “highly restricted personal information” means an individual’s photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability information; and
(5) “express consent” means consent in writing, including consent conveyed electronically that bears an electronic signature
Last edited:
18 USC 2721(a) is a prohibition on disclosures from motor vehicle records by the state and its employees except in the situations set forth in 18 USC 2721(b). 18 USC 2721(c) prohibits redistribution (except for 18 USC 2721(b) purposes) by persons who have received the information from the state.
18 USC 2722 makes it illegal for any person "knowingly to obtain or disclose personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for any use not permitted under section 2721(b) of this title."
By my read, a private person can only violate this law if he or she obtains personal information from a DMV. I don't think this has anything to do with information someone takes from a driver's license that is presented to them by its owner.
This statutory scheme is about states selling DMV database information for unrestricted use.
rxlawdude
Active Member
I don't think your interpretation is right. But if it is, the lawsuit is toast as that is the alleged violation. Then there's the gaunlet og certification of a class of alleged injured parties.
I'd make a $20 wager this suit is dismissed in a summary judgment and fails to certify as class action.
rxlawdude
Active Member
Department of Justice just announced yesterday that Tesla settled for $29.5 million for Solar City case.
If you are not an investor, I don't think you should worry about a few millions here for this lawsuit and few hundred of millions there for that lawsuit...
SDRick
Active Member
X Fan
Active Member
Whenever someone asks for money whether from DOJ or test driver, there's a potential of losing money to either:
1) defend against it (it costs money to do research and filing...)
or
2) settle it.
Of course, there's also another potential of winning it too! But I am not sure Tesla would earn a net profit from winning a lawsuit.
SDRick
Active Member
Yes, I agree. Thank you for stating the obvious.
My comment of "who cares" had nothing to do with the lawsuit you highlighted or your insinuation of a cavalier attitude toward Tesla's financial exposure to the legal system.
My comment was directed toward my perceived merits of this particular suit. More in the light of what I stated above...If someone does not want to provide their license for a test drive, they can rent a Tesla from someone else. But then I guess you need to show your license for that as well!
Similar threads
