Volume II

Issue : 5: March 4, 2004

• ICANN Faces Suits over Internet Domain Name Regulatory Practices
• Microsoft Brings Its Battle with Lindows to Canada
• U.S. Federal Trade Commission Levies Fines under the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act
• California Appeals Court Reverses Order Prohibiting Internet Publication of DVD-Cracking Code
• FDA Sends Warning to Minnesota over its Prescription Drug Website
• Texas Doctor Sentenced to Jail for Prescribing over the Internet
• District Court Enjoins Manufacture and Distribution of DVD copying software
• U.S. Do-Not-Call Registry Does Not Violate the First Amendment
• U.S. Court Rules Extraction of Data by American Company from a Canadian Companys Online Database Does Not Violate DMCA
• UK High Court Asserts Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Case
• U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Recovery against Government for Privacy Act Violations without Actual Damages
• Supreme Court of Canada Rules Law Society's Photocopying Policy Does Not Violate Copyright Law

Home > Volume II > Issue 5: March 4, 2004 > U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Recovery against Government for Privacy Act Violations without Actual Damages

U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Recovery against Government for Privacy Act Violations without Actual Damages

The U.S. Supreme Court recently released a decision holding that actual damages must be proven to obtain a minimum statutory award from a federal agency for a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974. The violation at issue stemmed from the practice of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to identify black lung compensation claims from coal miners by Social Security Numbers (SSN), which were subsequently disclosed in public documents. There was no dispute that the Act was violated by the DOL. The issue was whether the claimants suffered any damages from the disclosure of their SSN.

Complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of Western Virginia by Buck Doe and others. The Court consolidated the cases, ordered the DOL to stop disclosing SSN, held that actual damages must be proven to obtain the minimum statutory award, granted summary judgment in favour of the DOL on all claims except that of the complainant Buck Doe, who had shown damages, and denied a motion by the remaining complainants to amend their claims to show actual damages. The complainants appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which released a decision affirming that of the District Court, with the exception of finding that the complainant Doe had not in fact adequately proven damages that would justify an award. Doe appealed to the Supreme Court.

Doe asked for relief on the basis of the provision of the Privacy Act, which reads in part: "In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection (g)(1)(C) or (D) of this section in which the court determines that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or willful, the United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of (A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000". Doe interpreted the section to argue that once it was proven that the Privacy Act was breached, there was an automatic entitlement to at least $1,000.

The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument and found that actual damages must be proven. The Court relied in part on a textual analysis of the provision. A "person entitled to recovery" from a violation was interpreted to be limited to a person with "actual damages sustained". The Court also relied on tort law principles and legislative history in interpreting the provision. Since Doe failed to prove damages, he was not entitled to any recovery. Dissenting opinions accepted Doe's interpretation of the provision.

For a copy of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, visit:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1377.pdf
For a copy of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Decision visit:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002247.P.pdf