PRESERVATION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY
Act 378 of 1988
445.1712 Record or information concerning purchase, lease, rental, or borrowing of books or other written materials, sound recordings, or video recordings; disclosure of customer identification prohibited; exception.
Sec. 2.
(1) Subject to subsection (2) and except as provided in section 3 or as otherwise provided by law, a person, or an employee or agent of the person, engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or lending books or other written materials, sound recordings, or video recordings shall not knowingly disclose to any person, other than the customer, a record or information that personally identifies the customer as having purchased, leased, rented, or borrowed those materials from the person engaged in the business.
(2) This section does not apply to the disclosure of a record or information that has been aggregated or has been processed in a manner designed to prevent its association with an identifiable customer.
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 11× “MCL 445.1712 prohibited certain persons from disclosing any record or information concerning the purchase, lease, rental, or borrowing of books or other written materials, sound recordings, or video recordings by a customer that indicates the identity of the customer.”
Perlin v. Time Inc., 237 F. Supp. 3d 623 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712 (1). The VRPA provides both a criminal penalty and a civil eause of action to enforce this prohibition.”
Rose Coulter-Owens v. Time Inc., 695 F. App'x 117 (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712 , Sec. 2 (effective 3/9/89 until 7/31/16, when amended) (footnote omitted).”
Cain v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 981 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
· cites it 5× “§ 445.1712. Moreover, though the VRPA’s disclosure exceptions generally track the VPPA’s disclosure exceptions, it does not include the VPPA’s “ordinary course of business” exception.”
Moeller v. Am. Media, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 3d 868 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712 . Further, the original PPPA provided that a customer whose information was disclosed could recover “actual, damages, including.”
Horton v. GameStop Corp., 380 F. Supp. 3d 679 (W.D. Mich. 2018).
· cites it 2× “GameStop first argues that the facts alleged in the complaint do not rise to the level of plausibility that GameStop is liable. GameStop states that NextMark, a company that purported to sell Game Informer subscriber information, says on its website that it does not sell mailing…”
Deacon v. Pandora Media, Inc., 901 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 4× “]” MCL § 445.1712. Likewise, Pandora contends that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the MCPA on the grounds that its conduct is authorized by law, and that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has prudential standing to sue for injunctive relief on a class…”
Cain v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 136 F. Supp. 3d 824 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
“§ 445.1712. The third section then provides various exceptions to section 2, including that “a record or information described in section 2 may be disclosed .”
Bozung v. Christianbook, LLC (W.D. Mich. 2023).
· cites it 6× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712 (1989). That version of the PPPA also entitled the customer to recover the following for a violation of the statute: “[a]ctual damages, .”
Gottsleben v. Informa Media, Inc. (W.D. Mich. 2023).
· cites it 6× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712 (1989). That version of the PPPA also entitled the customer to recover the following for a violation of the statute: “[a]ctual damages, .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712(1) — 1 case
Perlin v. Time Inc., 237 F. Supp. 3d 623 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
“Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712 (1). The VRPA provides both a criminal penalty and a civil eause of action to enforce this prohibition.”
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.