A Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law, handing a big win to automakers Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors.
You would lose that bet. David G. Estudillo was appointed to the state judiciary by Gov. Jay Inslee and then to the federal judiciary by Biden.
However, the article misrepresented the ruling. The actual decision (my emphasis) was:
a plaintiff must allege an injury to “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation.”
An injury is more than a threat, it's an actual monetary loss. To show an injury, you need to "bring the receipts" as it were. In this case, the plaintiff did not formally state their injury.
So we don't have privacy as individuals because it doesn't hurt our bank account, but of course that means all businesses get their right to privacy because reason$.
It's a state law, so if you live in Washington state then you have to show actual damages to win a lawsuit. It should be easy to do so if (for example) a privacy breach led to identity theft. And this requirement applies to both individuals and businesses.
If you live in another state, YMMV. Maybe you have more right to privacy, maybe less.
Basically the judge said the plaintiff could not show any harm done to them. Someone who has been arrested based on this could definitely sue and get it stopped.
"His or her person has been threatened" implies physical harm. Sounds dumb or corrupt for privacy legislation, but unless the car companies were using the data to conduct identity theft, it wouldn't be considered a direct threat. Obviously we know them storing the data at all is a threat, even without the data brokers, but the law is shit… and judges are usually technologically illiterate rich kids anyway.
deleted by creator
You would lose that bet. David G. Estudillo was appointed to the state judiciary by Gov. Jay Inslee and then to the federal judiciary by Biden.
However, the article misrepresented the ruling. The actual decision (my emphasis) was:
An injury is more than a threat, it's an actual monetary loss. To show an injury, you need to "bring the receipts" as it were. In this case, the plaintiff did not formally state their injury.
So we don't have privacy as individuals because it doesn't hurt our bank account, but of course that means all businesses get their right to privacy because reason$.
Cool.
It's a state law, so if you live in Washington state then you have to show actual damages to win a lawsuit. It should be easy to do so if (for example) a privacy breach led to identity theft. And this requirement applies to both individuals and businesses.
If you live in another state, YMMV. Maybe you have more right to privacy, maybe less.
Basically the judge said the plaintiff could not show any harm done to them. Someone who has been arrested based on this could definitely sue and get it stopped.
"His or her person has been threatened" implies physical harm. Sounds dumb or corrupt for privacy legislation, but unless the car companies were using the data to conduct identity theft, it wouldn't be considered a direct threat. Obviously we know them storing the data at all is a threat, even without the data brokers, but the law is shit… and judges are usually technologically illiterate rich kids anyway.
God this place is a cesspool. How do armchair lawyers get upvoted like this?