including: (11) For any other use in response to requests for individual motor vehicle records if the State has obtained the express consent of the person to whom such personal information pertains. (12) For bulk distribution for surveys, marketing or solicitations if the State has obtained the express consent of the person to whom such personal information pertains. (13) For use by any requester, if the requester demonstrates it has obtained the written consent of the individual to whom the information pertains. 3 . Defendants' argument that there was conflicting state law is unavailing. The law was clear at the relevant time that the DPPA preempted any conflicting state law that regulates the dissemination of motor vehicle record information. Condon, 528 U.S. at 151, 120 S.Ct. 666 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Defendants were bound to follow
holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg  4b12a holding that plaintiffs had constitutional standing where plaintiffs alleged that defendant engaged in bulk compilation and distribution of their personal information contained in motor vehicle records in violation of the drivers privacy protection act dppa 18 usc  2722 holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling holding that the dppa regulates the states as the owners of data bases and regulates the universe of entities that participate as suppliers to the market for motor vehicle information