Extending DPPA Coverage to Non-DMV State Actors
Commentary on LMG Rhode Island Holdings, Inc. v. Office of Governor Daniel J. McKee

Introduction

On 6 June 2025 the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued an opinion in LMG Rhode Island Holdings, Inc. v. Office of Governor Daniel J. McKee that settles a high-profile dispute between the publisher of The Providence Journal and the Governor’s Office over access to the names of Rhode Island drivers who received “preferred” low-number license plates. The request was made under Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act, or “APRA”. The Governor’s Office refused, invoking the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) and several APRA exemptions.

Two core questions reached the state’s highest court:

1. Does the DPPA—although addressed to “State department of motor vehicles”—also bind another state agency (here, the Governor’s Office) when that agency collects or processes motor-vehicle-related personal information?
2. If so, does the DPPA pre-empt an otherwise valid state open-records request, thereby activating the APRA exemption for records “required to be kept confidential by federal law”?

The Court answered both questions affirmatively, thereby dismissing the newspaper’s declaratory-judgment action and denying the state’s counter-request for attorneys’ fees. This commentary unpacks the judgment, its reasoning, and its broader ramifications.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, per Justice Lynch Prata, unanimously affirmed the Superior Court:

• The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act applies not only to the Rhode Island Division of Motor Vehicles (RIDMV) but also to the Governor’s Office when it “stands in the shoes” of the DMV in processing preferred-plate applications. A narrow, literal reading that confines the DPPA to the DMV itself would frustrate congressional purpose and yield “absurd results.”
• The requested list of names constitutes “personal information obtained in connection with a motor vehicle record” and is therefore shielded from disclosure by the DPPA.
• Because federal law bars disclosure, APRA’s exemption § 38-2-2(4)(S)—records “required to be kept confidential by federal law or regulation”—squarely applies. The Governor’s Office did not violate APRA.
• The Governor’s Office, although prevailing, was not entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 38-2-9(d) because the plaintiff’s action was grounded in fact and law and was not frivolous.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Statutory-interpretation line (Epic Enterprises LLC v. Bard Group, Koback, Lang, In re J.T.): These cases establish Rhode Island’s methodology: read clear text literally; if ambiguous, construe purposively and avoid absurdity. They legitimized the Court’s pivot from literalism to purposivism in interpreting “State department of motor vehicles.”
2. Federal DPPA Cases:
   • Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (2013) and Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) – Supreme Court previews of DPPA’s privacy-protective purpose, cited to reinforce congressional intent.
   • United States v. Hastie, 854 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2017) – Held that a county licensing body falls under DPPA; directly analogized to the Governor’s Office to show broader institutional coverage.
3. Administrative Review & Fee Cases:
   • Estrella v. Janney Montgomery Scott – Provides deferential appellate standard for declaratory-judgment reviews.
   • Danforth v. More and De Vries v. Gaudiana – Establish bifurcated review for attorneys’ fees: legal basis (de novo) then discretion (abuse-of-discretion). Guided the denial of fees.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Ambiguity & Purpose
   The phrase “State department of motor vehicles” was held ambiguous in a modern bureaucratic landscape where responsibilities may be distributed. Applying Maracich/ Reno purpose analysis, the Court reasoned that Congress sought to plug privacy leaks regardless of internal state configurations.
2. Functional Equivalence Doctrine
   The Governor’s Office, by screening and transmitting preferred-plate requests, “effectively stands in the shoes of the RIDMV.” Under the functional-equivalence doctrine, if an entity performs the same task that a statutorily-named agency traditionally performs, the legal obligations travel with the function.
3. Absurd-Results Avoidance
   A literal reading that exempted the Governor’s Office would allow states to bypass DPPA simply by shuffling paperwork to a different agency—a loophole Congress could not have intended.
4. Integration with APRA
   Once DPPA confidentiality attaches, APRA’s §38-2-2(4)(S) automatically exempts; therefore, the Court did not need to address Rhode-Island-specific invasion-of-privacy exemptions § (4)(A)(I)(b), (E), or (M).
5. Attorneys’ Fees Analysis
   The hearing justice found the newspaper’s argument “grounded in existing law” and aligned with a good-faith plea for doctrinal modification. Under the statute’s discretionary framework, that finding foreclosed a fees award.

C. Impact of the Decision

• Clarifies DPPA Reach in Rhode Island – Any state agency, board, or office that collects or processes motor-vehicle-related personal data is now presumptively subject to DPPA constraints.
• Narrows APRA’s Reach Over DMV-Related Records – Journalists and open-government advocates must recalibrate expectations: if a record can be linked to vehicle registration or licensing, federal pre-emption likely applies.
• Administrative Realignment – State offices may revisit workflows that intersect with motor-vehicle data to ensure DPPA compliance (access controls, redaction protocols, staff training).
• Litigation Guidance – Sets a high bar for prevailing defendants seeking fees under APRA; reaffirming courts’ reluctance absent clear frivolity.
• Precedential Weight Beyond Rhode Island – Although a state-court decision, its purposive reading of “State department of motor vehicles” may influence sister states confronting similar functional dispersions (e.g., county clerks, tax commissioners, or Governor’s constituent-services units processing plate requests).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA)

A 1994 federal statute that prohibits state motor-vehicle agencies (and their agents) from disclosing personal information—name, address, photograph, etc.—obtained through motor-vehicle records, subject to narrow exceptions (law enforcement, insurance, etc.). Violations can trigger civil liability.

Access to Public Records Act (APRA)

Rhode Island’s open-records law. It creates a disclosure presumption but enumerates specific exemptions, including records “made confidential by federal law” (§ 38-2-2(4)(S)).

Preferred Plates

Low-digit or vanity plates considered status symbols in Rhode Island. The Governor’s Office, not the DMV proper, traditionally manages allocations.

Functional-Equivalence Doctrine

An interpretive principle: when a non-listed entity performs the duties of a listed entity, statutes governing the latter apply to the former. Prevents evasion through bureaucratic restructuring.

Absurd-Results Canon

A rule that courts should reject literal statutory interpretations that lead to patently unreasonable or illogical outcomes contrary to legislative purpose.

Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s ruling in LMG Rhode Island Holdings establishes an important precedent: DPPA confidentiality follows the vehicle-data function, not the formal label of the agency performing it. Consequently, open-records statutes yield to federal privacy mandates whenever personal information arises “in connection with” motor-vehicle registration. While transparency advocates may lament a curtailed scope of public access, the decision harmonizes state practice with Congress’s overarching privacy goals and closes a potential loophole in the DPPA framework. Future litigants must now grapple with this expanded view, and state agencies must ensure compliance across the entirety of government operations that touch on driver data.