DMA Plans to Fight Shelby Amendment

The Direct Marketing Association hopes to win a full hearing in Congress on the Shelby Amendment, a measure requiring state motor vehicle programs to get permission from drivers before releasing information on them for marketing purposes. State motor vehicle departments have until June 1 to move from opt-out programs to opt-in, according to the DMA.

The last apparent roadblock to enforcement of the Amendment was removed on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994. (DIRECT Newsline, Jan. 13).

Although the High Court did not specifically mention the Shelby Amendment, the decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist appears to leave the measure intact. The Court ruled that Congress has the power to control the release of driver information by state motor vehicle bureaus.

That decision will affect a wide range of marketers, from the armed forces, which use motor vehicle information to recruit, to firms that sell auto accessories by mail, said H. Robert Wientzen, president of the DMA, in a statement.

Wientzen also warned that the decision could lead to more activism on the part of Congress restricting use of information.

“Already, through the Shelby Amendment, Congress has moved to restrict further motor vehicle records from marketing use without any public debate whatsoever,” he said.

“I was very disappointed,” added Jan Davis, executive vice president with Trans Union LCC, a major information provider. “This is going to make life harder for all of us who rely on good, clean public record data.”

Davis continued, “This is just the start down that slippery slope leading to more regulation, and it’s a wakeup call for the industry. We have to begin making our case to the public that the free flow of information is extremely valuable to consumers.”

Tuesday’s ruling reversed the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld a decision by the U.S. District court for the District of South Carolina, finding that the DPPA was “incompatible with the principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution…” Rehnquist wrote. South Carolina had filed suit in 1997, claiming that the DPPA violates the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the Constitution.

Rehnquist’s opinion seems to validate the Shelby Amendment’s shift from an opt-out to an opt-in. “Under the amended DPPA, states may not imply consent from a driver’s failure to take advantage of a state-afforded opportunity to block disclosure, but must rather obtain a driver’s affirmative consent,” he wrote.