PRESERVATION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY
Act 378 of 1988
445.1711 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) "Customer" means an individual who purchases, rents, or borrows a book, other written material, a sound recording, or a video recording.
(b) "Employee" means an individual who works for an employer in exchange for wages or other remuneration.
(c) "Employer" means a person that has 1 or more employees.
(d) "Ordinary course of business" means activities related to the sale, rental, or lending of, or advertising in, materials described in section 2.
(e) "Written" includes any electronic means using the Internet or otherwise authorized under the uniform electronic transactions act, 2000 PA 305, MCL 450.831 to 450.849.
History: 1988, Act 378, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 92, Eff. July 31, 2016
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 2 of Act 92 of 2016 provides:
"Enacting section 2. This amendatory act is curative and intended to clarify that the prohibitions on disclosing information contained in 1988 PA 378, MCL 445.1711 to 445.1715, do not prohibit disclosing information if it is incident to the ordinary course of business of the person disclosing the information, including marketing goods and services to customers or potential customers when written notice is provided, and that a civil action for a violation of those prohibitions may only be brought by a customer who has suffered actual damages as a result of the violation."
PopularName Notes:
Video Rental Privacy Act
Notes of Decisions
in Re Certified Question (Deacon v. Pandora), 885 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 24× “Deacon claimed, in relevant part, that Pandora had violated the preservation of personal privacy act (PPPA), MCL 445.1711 et seq. (also commonly known as the video rental privacy act or VRPA), by publically disclosing personal information concerning his music preferences.”
Perlin v. Time Inc., 237 F. Supp. 3d 623 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 2× “, alleging in Count 1 that Defendant violated Michigan’s Video Rental Privacy Act (“VRPA”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1711 et seq., and alleging in Count 2 that Defendant was unjustly enriched through its violation of the VRPA.”
Boelter v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
· cites it 2× “, d/b/a Condé Nast (“Condé Nast”), alleging that Condé Nast disclosed her subscription information in violation of the Michigan Preservation of Personal Privacy Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1711 et seq. She also brings a claim for unjust enrichment under Michigan law.”
Coulter-Owens v. Time, Inc., 308 F.R.D. 524 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff brings this putative class action under Michigan’s Video Rental Privacy Act (“VRPA”), Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.1711 et seq., alleging that defendant improperly disclosed the private information of people who subscribed to TIME, Fortune, and Real Simple magazines through…”
Moeller v. Am. Media, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 3d 868 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
“§ 445.1711 et seq.) (“Am. PPPA”). The amendment excluded from liability “disclosure[s] incident to the ordinary course of business.”
Pratt v. KSE Sportsman Media, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 5× “LAWS § 445.1711 et seq. See ECF No. 17. As explained hereafter, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted and denied in part.”
Chelone v. Am.'s Test Kitchen LP (E.D. Mich. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Approximately four months later, he filed a motion for leave to amend his pleading in order to add two additional named Plaintiffs to the lawsuit, and thereby to remedy potential standing problems.”
Shye v. Bookspan LLC (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “1 Plaintiff, a Michigan resident and book-club member, alleges that Defendant, an online book seller, sold her personal information to data aggregators without her permission, resulting in “a barrage of unwanted junk mail.”
Krassick v. Archaeological Inst. of Am. (W.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or lending books or other written materials” from “disclos[ing] to any person, other than the customer, a record or information concerning the purchase, lease, rental, or borrowing of those materials by a customer that…”
Bozung v. Christianbook, LLC (W.D. Mich. 2023).
· cites it 2× “BACKGROUND Defendant Christianbook, LLC is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1711(a) — 3 cases
in Re Certified Question (Deacon v. Pandora), 885 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2016).
“Deacon claimed, in relevant part, that Pandora had violated the preservation of personal privacy act (PPPA), MCL 445.1711 et seq. (also commonly known as the video rental privacy act or VRPA), by publically disclosing personal information concerning his music preferences.”
Shye v. Bookspan LLC (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“1 Plaintiff, a Michigan resident and book-club member, alleges that Defendant, an online book seller, sold her personal information to data aggregators without her permission, resulting in “a barrage of unwanted junk mail.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1711(b) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1711(c) — 1 case
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.