A legal battle, seen as a major privacy rights issue, came down to the extent to which the Stored Communications Act (SCA) protects user data, and is now headed to the Supreme Court of California.
This comes after the California Court of Appeal ruled in the Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court case that the majority of remotely stored messages are not covered by the Act’s law designed to prevent unlawful access to stored communications – Section 2702.
The CSA is there to stop platforms that provide online communications and storage from sharing contents of users’ online accounts (messages, emails, photos…). There are some exceptions in the legislation itself, e.g., unless the government obtains a warrant, that sets the bar relatively high.
But now, it looks like Big Tech’s “standard” business model – exploiting user data for massive profits – is coming back to haunt those users in yet another way.
Namely, the California Court of Appeal has found that if providers of that stored user data already have access to it, in order to monetize this content, then that content is effectively already disclosed and CSA has no business trying to protect it.
We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.
And if this ruling stands, then tech companies can be asked to turn over user data without a warrant – a subpoena, the civil variety included – could potentially suffice.
The state’s appellate court does draw the distinction between companies monetizing remotely stored data and those who refrain from accessing their users’ accounts in any way other than what is technically necessary to provide the service.
Unfortunately for privacy rights overall, and obviously not only in the context of this ruling, this standard doesn’t apply to those involved here, Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, and Snap’s Snapchat.
The proceedings originate from a murder case where the defendant, accused of killing his brother, asked (via subpoenas) to access the contents of the victim’s Instagram, Snapchat, etc., accounts, as a way to help his defense.
Meta and Snap refused, citing Section 2702, but the Court of Appeals for reasons explained, ordered them to comply.
Now both companies are asking the California Supreme Court to review this decision.
