(CN) — Meta and Snap, insofar as they are in the business of mining and monetizing users’ data, can’t hide behind the Stored Communications Act to avoid turning over posts and communications to the defendant in a murder case.
A San Diego-based appellate court rejected the arguments by the two social media companies on Tuesday and found their business models distinguish them from electronic communications services and remote computing services as defined under the 1986 federal law protecting the privacy of people’s emails and the like.
“We recognize the import of this decision and do not take lightly the policy arguments presented by Snap and Meta,” Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell said in the unanimous decision. “However, we conclude that the plain language of the SCA provisions at issue and the legislative history behind them establish that the disclosure limitations contained in the Act do not apply to the material at issue here.”
Meta, the operator of Facebook and Instagram, and Snap, which runs Snapchat, are fighting the subpoenas by Adrian Pina as he awaits trial on charges he murdered his brother Samuel Pina and attempted to murder another man on Dec. 26, 2021.
Adrian Pina subpoenaed his deceased brother’s posts and communication to use in his defense because they purportedly reveal Samuel Pina’s violent tendencies.
A trial judge in January denied the social media companies’ motions to quash the subpoenas, noting that they would have complied with a valid search warrant for the same information brought by the police or prosecution. The judge agreed Pina had shown “good cause” that the information he sought was relevant to his defense, prompting Meta and Snap to take their case to the California Court of Appeals.
In their petitions the companies argue that the Stored Communications Act precludes them from turning over Samuel Pina’s data to his brother, which the district attorney prosecuting the case disagreed with and which Adrian Pina said would mean the statute violates equal protection, due process and fair trial rights.
In rejecting Meta’s and Snap’s arguments, the appellate panel took its cue from a 2020 decision by the California Supreme Court that addressed a similar criminal defense subpoena of a user’s restricted posts and messages.
In that case court didn’t resolve Facebook’s defense that it was shielded by the Stored Communications Act from complying with the subpoena because the trial judge hadn’t adequately determined there was “good cause” for this request to start with. But in a concurring opinion, former Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye questioned whether Facebook’s business model qualifies it as an electronic communications service or remote computing service under what she called the outdated definitions of the statute, and she said this issue needed to be addressed if a similar case presented itself.
“Pina accepts the invitation of the Touchstone concurring opinions to argue that the business model of these companies brings them outside the limitations of disclosure created by the SCA,” McConnell said referring to the 2020 case. “We are persuaded by this argument.”
The statute, which predates the advent of the internet in 1990 and the introduction of the web browser in 1994, doesn’t apply when the provider of electronic communications or remote computing services is accessing a user’s content for purposes other than facilitating communications or storing the content as backup for the user, the judge said.
“The underlying policy purpose of the SCA, to give privacy protections to the users of ECS providers who intend for their communication to be private, is belied where, as here, the users have given the providers authorization to access and use their content for their own business purposes,” McConnell wrote.
The panel noted numerous caveats that limit the extent to which private data can be made public under its ruling. For one, the subpoenas require Meta and Snap to turn the requested information to the trial judge who will determine whether it’s relevant to Pina’s defense and can be introduced at trial.
The court also noted that California’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act protects social media users’ private data, as does federal case law. The latter requires a search warrant, instead of a mere subpoena or court order, before a governmental entity may obtain private electronic communications.
“Our conclusion that the SCA does not protect the communications at issue here does not mean the third party is authorized generally to publicize the information provided to them by their users,” McConnell wrote. “Rather, their own contractual agreements with users govern the terms of their use of that information.”
Representatives of Meta and Snap didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.