Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the statutory damages provision of the Privacy Act of 1974. Prior to the case, lower federal courts had split over whether plaintiffs whose rights were violated were automatically entitled to the statutory minimum damages award of $1000, or whether those plaintiffs had to prove that they had suffered at least some actual damage from the privacy breach (which would then be raised to $1000 if their actual damages were less than that). The Court's 6-3 decision determined that the latter interpretation was correct; as a result, it will be more difficult for a plaintiff to prevail as he or she must now prove both a violation and some damages before being entitled to recovery. This result is generally applauded by proponents of greater freedoms for the press, as a contrary result may have made government agencies more reluctant to release information out of fear of lawsuits.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Doe_v._Chao abstract "Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the statutory damages provision of the Privacy Act of 1974. Prior to the case, lower federal courts had split over whether plaintiffs whose rights were violated were automatically entitled to the statutory minimum damages award of $1000, or whether those plaintiffs had to prove that they had suffered at least some actual damage from the privacy breach (which would then be raised to $1000 if their actual damages were less than that). The Court's 6-3 decision determined that the latter interpretation was correct; as a result, it will be more difficult for a plaintiff to prevail as he or she must now prove both a violation and some damages before being entitled to recovery. This result is generally applauded by proponents of greater freedoms for the press, as a contrary result may have made government agencies more reluctant to release information out of fear of lawsuits.".