Amazon, Google, and LinkedIn support Microsoft’s lawsuit against the US challenging the SCA

05 September 2016 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

Many major Internet players endorsed Microsoft’s April, 2016 lawsuit against the US that the SCA (Stored Communications Act) (part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b)) violates the First and Fourth Amendments since the Constitution should “afford people and businesses the right to know if the government searches or seizes their property.”  On September 2, 2016 an Amicus Brief was filed by “Amazon.com, Box, Cisco Systems, Dropbox, Evernote, Google, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Salesforce, Snapchat, and Yahoo” believe that:

…that their customers have a right to be informed of government searches of their private data and that amici have a right to inform them.

Also the Brief included these comments to clarify their position:

Amici respect the important work that law enforcement agencies do every day.  

Technology companies like amici have, or in the future may have, obligations under the Stored Communications Act and other laws to deliver customer data to law enforcement in response to proper legal process, and amici take these obligations seriously.

Many amici have full-time teams of employees—with someone on duty or on call around the clock—dedicated to responding to law enforcement requests for data.

Indeed, in just the last six months of 2015, amici collectively responded to tens of thousands of U.S. government data requests in criminal investigations.

Many amici also publish guidelines for law enforcement that explain their products, describe what customer data can be requested through legal process, and set out how best to serve process on the company.

Amici, in short, have no desire to shield criminals.

This is a very important case to follow.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services