Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 18-55169 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Sirius XM in an action brought by plaintiff under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act after the dealership from which he bought a used car provided his personal information to Sirius XM and plaintiff received unsolicited advertisements asking him to renew his radio subscription.
The panel held that the Act did not apply where the source of personal information is a driver's license in the possession of its owner, rather than a state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Therefore, Sirius XM's use of personal information derived from plaintiff's driver's license did not violate the Act. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Given the CFAA's limited conception of loss, an amendment would have been futile.
Court Description: Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an action under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits the use and disclosure of personal information derived from Department of Motor Vehicles records. After the dealership from which plaintiff bought a used car provided his personal information to defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc., plaintiff received unsolicited advertisements asking him to renew his radio subscription. The panel held that the DPPA does not apply where the source of personal information is a driver’s license in the possession of its owner, rather than a state Department of Motor Vehicles. The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The panel further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The panel held that plaintiff could not have brought a viable CFAA claim because he could not plausibly allege a qualifying loss. ANDREWS V. SIRIUS XM RADIO 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.