Stored Communications Act

Stored Communications Act
Name	Stored Communications Act
Enacted by	95th United States Congress
Effective	1986
Citation	18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2712
Introduced by	Jerrold Nadler?
Status	in force

Stored Communications Act

The Stored Communications Act is a federal statute enacted in 1986 that governs access to electronic communications and remote computing services. It addresses disclosure of content and noncontent information held by Internet service providers, telecommunications companys, electronic communication services, and remote computing service providers, and it interacts with other statutes like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Communications Act of 1934. The statute has been central to litigation involving digital privacy, surveillance, and discovery in matters involving entities such as Microsoft Corporation, Google LLC, Yahoo!, AT&T Inc., and Verizon Communications.

Background and enactment

Congress enacted the statute as part of the broader Electronic Communications Privacy Act package responding to technological change following rulings like Smith v. Maryland (1979) and developments in services offered by companies such as CompuServe and AOL LLC. Legislative debates referenced concerns raised by advocates including Electronic Frontier Foundation, scholars at institutions like Harvard University and Stanford Law School, and testimony from executives at IBM and Bell Labs. The statute reflects compromises among committees including the United States House Committee on the Judiciary and the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary during the tenure of leaders such as Tip O'Neill and Robert Byrd.

Scope and key provisions

The Act delineates protections for "electronic communication service" and "remote computing service" subscribers, affecting entities such as Dropbox, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Facebook, Inc., and Microsoft Azure. It creates prohibitions and exceptions under sections codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2712, defining unauthorized access and permitted disclosure rules used by providers like Comcast and CenturyLink. Provisions address account records, transactional information, and stored content, implicating technologies from server farms to data centers run by firms such as Equinix and Rackspace Technology. The Act interacts with other statutes and doctrines, including the Fourth Amendment and doctrines shaped by courts like the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Law enforcement access and warrants

The statute sets different standards for disclosure: voluntary disclosure, subpoena, court order, and warrant requirements that have been litigated in cases involving agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. Key controversy concerns whether stored content older than 180 days can be obtained with a subpoena or requires a warrant—a question addressed in litigation involving Microsoft Corporation v. United States and enforcement actions by the United States Attorney General. Courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have issued influential opinions regarding the interplay of the Act with search and seizure jurisprudence from decisions such as Katz v. United States.

Civil litigants and private parties

Civil litigants and private parties invoke the Act in discovery battles involving corporations like Apple Inc., Twitter, Inc., Dropbox, Inc., and law firms in disputes in jurisdictions such as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Act has been used both to compel providers to produce data and to shield providers from liability for disclosing communications pursuant to court process, implicating state law claims brought in venues including the California Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals. Class action litigants represented by firms such as Latham & Watkins and Covington & Burling have litigated issues of standing, preemption, and statutory damages under the Act.

Judicial interpretation and major cases

Major judicial decisions shaping interpretation include litigation involving Microsoft Corporation (related to extraterritoriality and cloud storage), opinions from the United States Supreme Court addressing related privacy doctrines, and circuit decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit. Notable cases and disputes involve parties such as United States v. Warshak (addressing expectation of privacy), In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account decisions, and appellate rulings involving companies like Yahoo! and AT&T Inc.. Courts have wrestled with issues of statutory construction, separation of powers as litigated against actions by the Executive Office of the President, and international data transfer disputes implicating treaties and instruments referenced by actors including European Commission officials and litigants from Microsoft Ireland.

Criticisms and reform efforts

Scholars and advocacy organizations including American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy & Technology, and academics at Yale Law School and Columbia Law School have criticized the statute for outdated provisions and unclear standards. Legislative reform efforts have been proposed in Congress, with bills introduced and debated in committees chaired by members such as Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy, and influenced by reports from bodies like the United States Government Accountability Office and hearings featuring witnesses from Amazon.com, Inc., Google LLC, and Facebook, Inc.. International privacy regimes such as the General Data Protection Regulation have prompted comparative critiques and proposals for amendments to improve cross-border data access, transparency, and protections advocated by organizations including International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Category:United States federal legislation