Any person, other than an employee of the state or of a local government agency acting solely in his or her official capacity, who intentionally discloses information, not otherwise public, which they know or should reasonably know was obtained from personal information maintained by a state agency or from “records” within a “system of records” (as these terms are defined in the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 (P. L. 93-579; 5 U.S.C. 552a)) maintained by a federal government agency, shall be subject to a civil action, for invasion of privacy, by the individual to whom the information pertains.
In any
successful action brought under this section, the complainant, in addition to any special or general damages awarded, shall be awarded a minimum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) in exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in the suit.
The right, remedy, and cause of action set forth in this section shall be nonexclusive and is in addition to all other rights, remedies, and causes of action for invasion of privacy, inherent in Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution.
Notes of Decisions
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. Superior Court, 27 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1321 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Civil Code section 1798.53 is part of the Information Practices Act of 1977, which generally imposes limitations on the right of governmental entities to disclose personal information about an individual.”
Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
“53 provides a remedy against any person, other than an employee of a state or local agency acting in his or her official capacity, who intentionally discloses information, not otherwise public, which that person knows or reasonably should know was obtained from personal…”
Buzayan v. City of Davis, 927 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Cal. 2013).
· cites it 5× “Secondly, the same parties also seek partial summary judgment as to the Fifteenth Cause of Action, which alleges violations both of California’s common law right to privacy and to statutory rights to private information protected under the California Information Practices Act,…”
Stirling v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 189 Cal. App. 3d 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
“Thus, for example, Civil Code section 1798.53 authorizes the award of attorney’s fees, litigation costs and exemplary damages to the successful “complainant” in an action for invasion of privacy.”
Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“One cause of action alleges violations of the Information Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1798.53), and another alleges unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200.”
Wynne v. Arteaga (N.D. Cal. 2024).
“4 The complaint states six claims related to Defendant’s identity theft: 1) conversion; 2) 5 receiving stolen property in violation of California Penal Code § 496; 3) violation of privacy; 4) 6 violation of the California Constitutional right to privacy; 5) violation of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.