Passed in 1968, the Wiretap Act makes it unlawful for someone to “intentionally intercept[] … any wire, oral, or electronic communication,” unless that person “is a party to the communication.” Facebook users brought a class action alleging that the tech company violated the Wiretap Act between 2010 and 2011. Specifically, the users claim that Facebook plug-ins on different websites allowed Facebook to gather URL data even when they were logged out of Facebook, which the users contend was an unlawful “interception.” The district court dismissed the case on the ground that Facebook was a “party to the communication.” Acknowledging a circuit split, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the case could proceed. In Facebook v. Davis, the company asks the justices to review and reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision.
It looks like the court still has to decide if they’ll hear the case, but that’s happening next week.
1 comment
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 11.3 ms ] threadPassed in 1968, the Wiretap Act makes it unlawful for someone to “intentionally intercept[] … any wire, oral, or electronic communication,” unless that person “is a party to the communication.” Facebook users brought a class action alleging that the tech company violated the Wiretap Act between 2010 and 2011. Specifically, the users claim that Facebook plug-ins on different websites allowed Facebook to gather URL data even when they were logged out of Facebook, which the users contend was an unlawful “interception.” The district court dismissed the case on the ground that Facebook was a “party to the communication.” Acknowledging a circuit split, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the case could proceed. In Facebook v. Davis, the company asks the justices to review and reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision.
It looks like the court still has to decide if they’ll hear the case, but that’s happening next week.