Sung Mi Ju v. Mukasey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the DDPA does not apply to the dissemination of personal information obtained from a private party
• holding that the DDPA does not apply to the dissemination of personal information obtained from a private party
• “Reading the statute as a whole, it is clear that it is concerned with the source of the information — the state, as opposed to oneself — -and not the medium by which it is conveyed — a driver’s license, passport, credit card, or the spoken word.”
• “This statute seeks to control dissemination of information collected using the coercive power of the state. It does not regulate information freely given by consumers to private businesses.... ”
• where the court found that a bar did not violate the DPPA when it collected its patrons’ driver’s licenses at its door, recorded them on video, and then sold the information to marketers
• where the court found that a bar did not violate the DPPA when it collected its patrons’ driver’s licenses at its door, recorded them on video, and then sold the information to marketers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).