Pennsylvania County Hit with 68 Million Dollar Verdict in Statutory Damages After Violating Privacy Interests
Time 2 Minute Read

On May 28, 2019, a federal jury returned a verdict awarding $1,000 to each of the roughly 68,000 class members whose criminal history was made publicly available online. The jury found that Bucks County willfully violated Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Records Information Act (“CHRIA”) and awarded the statutory minimum to each of the class members. As a result, Bucks County could pay up to $68 million in punitive damages.

This case arises out of Bucks County’s inclusion of protected information in its “Inmate Lookup Tool.” At one point, the database contained information about the arrests of tens of thousands of individuals who had been held at the county’s correctional facility. In 2012, the class representative filed suit after he discovered that information about his expunged arrest from 1998 was publically available. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages under section 9183 of CHRIA.

The district court granted Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the issue of liability and granted his motion for class certification. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both decisions. The only issue submitted to the jury was whether Bucks County willfully violated CHRIA and if so, the amount of punitive damages to be awarded.

CHRIA regulates criminal justice agencies in the handling of criminal history record information. Section 9183(b) of CHRIA contains a statutory damages provision that sets a range of damages for aggrieved parties. The statute states, “[e]xemplary and punitive damages of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 shall be imposed for any violation of this chapter…found to be willful.” The Third Circuit found that the government defendants fell within the statute’s regulation and could be subject to punitive damages.

The jury determined that Bucks County willfully violated the statute and awarded the minimum damages permitted. The statutory damages provision opened the county to huge liability to class members whose actual damages might have been nonexistent.

The verdict against Bucks County illustrates how statutory damages provisions raise the stakes in class action litigation.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 2 Minute Read

On March 5, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency announced that the agency had reached a settlement with Ford Motor Company resolving an enforcement action against the company that alleged noncompliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act’s opt-out of sale/sharing rights.

Time 2 Minute Read

On February 23, 2026, a Joint Statement on AI-Generated Imagery was published by 61 data protection authorities. The Joint Statement addresses concerns regarding AI systems capable of generating realistic images and videos depicting identifiable individuals without their knowledge or consent.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page