Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

ARcare, Inc., a nonprofit community health center receiving federal funding, suffered a data breach in early 2022 when an unauthorized third party accessed confidential patient information, including names, social security numbers, and medical treatment details. After ARcare notified affected individuals, several patients filed lawsuits alleging that ARcare failed to adequately safeguard their information as required under federal law. Plaintiffs reported fraudulent invoices and that their information was found for sale on the dark web.The actions were removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, where six class actions were consolidated. ARcare sought to invoke absolute immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) of the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA), which provides immunity for damages resulting from the performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” ARcare moved to substitute the United States as defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing the data breach arose from a “related function.” The district court denied the motion, finding that protecting patient information from cyberattacks was not sufficiently linked to the provision of health care to qualify as a “related function” under the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the statutory immunity issue de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of immunity, holding that the FSHCAA’s language does not extend statutory immunity to claims arising from a health center’s data security practices. The court reasoned that “related functions” must be activities closely connected to the provision of health care, and data security is not such a function. Therefore, ARcare is not entitled to substitute the United States as defendant, and the denial of statutory immunity was affirmed. View "Hale v. ARcare, Inc" on Justia Law

A Texas-based company distributed files online that enabled the 3D printing of functional, untraceable firearms. After New Jersey’s Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist letter and the state legislature enacted a statute prohibiting the distribution of such files to unlicensed individuals, the company and an affiliated nonprofit restricted New Jersey residents from accessing these files. The plaintiffs challenged the actions, alleging violations of the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments.Initially, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Western District of Texas, which dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then filed a similar suit in the District of New Jersey, alleging the statute constituted criminal censorship. After complex procedural maneuvers—including appeals and transfers between Texas and New Jersey, and requests for retransfer—the litigation proceeded in the District of New Jersey, which consolidated the relevant cases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District of New Jersey’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s rulings. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying retransfer to Texas. The court further held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a Second Amendment claim, as there were no allegations that any plaintiff or member was prevented from 3D-printing a firearm. The court also found the statute was not void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause, as it provided fair notice of prohibited conduct. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts showing that the computer code at issue was expressive and entitled to First Amendment coverage, as the complaint did not detail the nature or expressive use of the files. The dismissal with prejudice was affirmed. View "Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

A Pennsylvania-based company operating an online marketplace for firearms was sued under New Hampshire law by a former Boston police officer and his wife. Their claims alleged that the company’s website facilitated the sale of a firearm in New Hampshire in 2015, which was later used to shoot the officer in Boston in 2016. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action including negligence, aiding and abetting tortious conduct, public nuisance, loss of consortium, and loss of support, based on the website’s alleged design and operation in encouraging illegal gun sales.Previously, the plaintiffs had filed a similar suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the company and other defendants, but that court dismissed the claims against the company based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, without ruling on personal jurisdiction. After jurisdictional discovery, the Massachusetts Superior Court subsequently dismissed the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then filed the present action in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, which denied their request for jurisdictional discovery and dismissed their claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding the company had not purposefully availed itself of the protections of New Hampshire’s laws.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling in part and vacated it in part. The First Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case of purposeful availment based on contacts up to 2016, but concluded that evidence of thousands of “New Hampshire” firearm listings on the website from 2018 onward, when considered with other evidence, sufficed for a prima facie showing of purposeful availment. The court remanded for consideration of relatedness and reasonableness and affirmed denial of jurisdictional discovery. View "Stokinger v. Armslist, LLC" on Justia Law

The City of Lakewood, Colorado enacted a business and occupation tax on certain telecommunications providers in 1969, which initially applied only to utility companies maintaining a telephone exchange and supplying local service within the city. Following changes in state and federal law promoting competitive neutrality and prohibiting barriers to entry, the city amended its tax ordinances in 1996 and again in 2015. The 1996 amendment expanded the tax to cover all providers of basic local telecommunications service, including some cellular services, while the 2015 amendment further broadened the scope to include all cellular and wireless voice service providers. Lakewood did not seek voter approval before enacting either amendment.After Lakewood audited MetroPCS California, LLC and assessed more than $1.6 million in unpaid business and occupation taxes, MetroPCS sued in the Jefferson County District Court. The district court granted summary judgment to MetroPCS, ruling that both the 1996 and 2015 Ordinances constituted "new taxes" under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), and thus required advance voter approval. The court found the ordinances expanded the tax to previously untaxed providers and services, generating revenue that was not merely incidental or de minimis. Lakewood’s arguments that the ordinances simply clarified or updated the existing tax and did not produce significant new revenue were rejected. The district court declared both ordinances void and unenforceable for lack of voter approval.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case directly. Applying de novo review, it affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that both the 1996 and 2015 Ordinances imposed new taxes within the meaning of TABOR, as they expanded the tax base to include new classes of providers and services, and the resulting revenue increases were not incidental. Because Lakewood failed to obtain voter approval prior to enacting these ordinances, both were held void and unenforceable. The Court remanded the case for consideration of MetroPCS’s request for appellate fees and costs. View "MetroPCS Cal., LLC v. City of Lakewood" on Justia Law

Law enforcement authorities investigating a graduate student at a university for rape served a search warrant on a major electronic service provider seeking data linked to the student’s university email account. Along with the warrant, the authorities obtained a nondisclosure order (NDO) that prohibited the provider from disclosing the existence of the warrant or the investigation to the target, the university, or others for 90 days. The provider did not contest the restriction as it applied to the target, but sought to modify the NDO so it could inform a trusted contact at the university about the warrant, arguing that doing so would not compromise the investigation and was required under state law and the First Amendment.In the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the provider’s motion to modify the NDO was denied. The court based its decision on a sealed affidavit supporting the warrant and NDO, finding that several statutory criteria justifying nondisclosure were satisfied. The court also rejected the provider’s proposal to notify a university contact, expressing concern about its lack of jurisdiction over the university and the possibility of unauthorized disclosure. The NDO was later extended, but ultimately lifted after the student was arrested.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the provider’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court held that the trial court complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act by making the required findings before issuing the NDO, and that the NDO satisfied strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the NDO served a compelling governmental interest in protecting an ongoing criminal investigation and was narrowly tailored, as allowing disclosure to a university contact posed unacceptable risks. The petition for writ of mandate was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Several subsidiaries of a major entertainment company providing video streaming services were notified by the City of Santa Barbara that they owed significant sums in unpaid video users’ taxes, penalties, and interest for the period from 2018 to 2020. The City’s demand was based on a 2008 ordinance, approved by local voters, which imposed a tax on those using “video services” in the city. The ordinance defined “video services” broadly, including services delivered by Internet Protocol. The companies argued that their streaming services did not fall under the ordinance because streaming platforms do not provide a “channel” as contemplated by the ordinance, instead relying on customers’ independently obtained Internet services.Following the City’s deficiency notice, the companies appealed administratively. An independent hearing officer upheld the City’s position, concluding that the ordinance applied to video streaming. The companies then sought judicial review in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. The trial court denied their petition, determining that the ordinance was intended to apply to streaming, that its enforcement did not violate federal or state law, and that the City was not required to provide additional notice before enforcement.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the ordinance, as approved by the electorate, applies to providers of video streaming services and that the ordinary, non-technical meaning of “channel” should govern. The court further held that applying the tax to streaming services does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, or the California Constitution, nor did the City’s delayed enforcement require additional voter approval or special notice under state law. The judgment denying the companies’ petition was affirmed. View "Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

A law enforcement agency served an electronic service provider with a search warrant for data associated with an email account belonging to a university graduate student under investigation for rape. The warrant was accompanied by a nondisclosure order (NDO) prohibiting the provider from notifying the student or anyone at the university about the warrant for 90 days. The provider did not contest the restriction against notifying the account holder but sought permission to inform a trusted contact at the university about the warrant's existence, citing concerns under the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) and the First Amendment.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed a sealed affidavit and found that several statutory criteria for “adverse results” under CalECPA were present, justifying the NDO. When the provider requested to modify the order to allow notification of a university contact, the court considered the proposal but ultimately declined after law enforcement objected, noting the court lacked jurisdiction over the university and could not ensure compliance with the NDO. The order was extended once and later lifted after the target was arrested. The provider’s initial petition for writ of mandate was summarily denied by the California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court then granted review and transferred the matter back to the appellate court for further consideration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and held that the trial court made the required findings under CalECPA before issuing the NDO and that the NDO did not violate the provider’s First Amendment rights. The court found the NDO served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves a Nevada-domiciled trust, managed by a Nevada family trust company, whose trustee petitioned the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada to seal confidential information and close all court proceedings under NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256. The district court sealed nearly all documents and concealed the existence of the case, citing concerns over revealing personal, financial, and business information, and later provided limited case information after media inquiries. Several media organizations, having reported on the matter—especially due to its connection to Rupert Murdoch and control over major media holdings—sought intervention to access court records and proceedings, arguing that the First Amendment presumption of public access applied.The probate commissioner recommended allowing media intervention but denying access, and the district court entered an order adopting this recommendation. The court interpreted the statutes as granting automatic and comprehensive confidentiality, finding that privacy and security concerns—heightened by the parties’ public profiles—constituted a compelling interest for sealing and closure. The district court also concluded it lacked discretion to consider redaction as an alternative and held that the statutes’ confidentiality provisions justified the broad closure, even after the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court recognized a First Amendment presumption of access in civil and family court proceedings.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s decision, holding that NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256 permit only provisional sealing and require judicial discretion. The statutes do not automatically justify blanket sealing or closure, nor do they displace the common law or constitutional presumption of openness. The court found that the district court failed to make specific, non-speculative factual findings to justify the sealing and closure and did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its sealing order and conduct the required analysis for each document and hearing transcript. View "New York Times Co. v. District Court" on Justia Law

Two individuals brought a class action against Amazon, alleging that its Virtual Try-On (VTO) feature—used to preview makeup and eyewear products by rendering them on users’ faces via their mobile devices—violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The VTO software, developed both in-house and by a third party, captured users’ facial geometry to overlay products for virtual preview. The plaintiffs claimed Amazon collected, stored, and used their facial data and that of many others in Illinois without proper notice, informed consent, or the creation of required data retention and destruction policies as mandated by BIPA.After removal from Illinois state court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The district court certified a class of all individuals who used Amazon’s VTO feature in Illinois after September 7, 2016. The district court found the class satisfied the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and that common questions—primarily concerning the VTO’s functionality and Amazon’s use of biometric data—predominated over individual questions such as location and damages. It also found a class action was superior due to the size and cost of potential individual litigation.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed only the class certification decision, focusing on predominance and superiority. The court affirmed the district court’s certification, holding that common questions about Amazon’s alleged statutory violations predominated and that individual questions regarding user location and damages were manageable. The court also agreed that a class action was superior to individual suits, given the complexity and cost of litigation, and affirmed the district court’s discretion. View "Svoboda v Amazon.com Inc." on Justia Law

Disney Platform Distribution, BAMTech, and Hulu, subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, provide video streaming services to subscribers in the City of Santa Barbara. In 2022, the City’s Tax Administrator notified these companies that they had failed to collect and remit video users’ taxes under Ordinance 5471 for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, resulting in substantial assessments. The companies appealed to the City Administrator, and a retired Associate Justice served as hearing officer, ultimately upholding the Tax Administrator’s decision.Following the administrative appeal, the companies sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The trial court denied their petition, finding that the Ordinance does apply to video streaming services and rejecting arguments that the Ordinance violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The trial court also found there was no violation of Public Utilities Code section 799’s notice requirements, as the City’s actions did not constitute a change in the tax base or adoption of a new tax.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Ordinance applies to video streaming services, interpreting the term “channel” in its ordinary, non-technical sense and finding that the voters intended technological neutrality. The court further held that the Ordinance does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act because video streaming subscriptions and DVD sales/rentals are not “similar” under the Act. Additionally, the court concluded the tax is not a content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment, and that delayed enforcement did not constitute a tax increase requiring additional voter approval or notice under the California Constitution or Public Utilities Code section 799. View "Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law