Court Decision Favors Adobe in Fight to Limit Indefinite Gag Order on Warrant, Says EFF
A U.S. magistrate judge in Los Angeles handed a victory to Adobe Systems in its fight to limit an indefinite gag order that prohibited the company from notifying anyone about a search warrant issued for a customer's account, said the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in a Monday blog post about the recently unsealed case. In amending the gag or "notice preclusion order" (NPO), Judge Frederick Mumm of the District Court for the Central District of California ruled March 31 that Adobe can't notify anyone, including the investigation's target, "of the existence of the Warrant, for 180 days from the date" of the court's decision, said the ruling linked to in the post. The government, however, can extend the NPO, the judge said. Adobe -- which filed an ex parte application in December to include an expiration date in the government's gag order -- said it notifies customers whose information is sought unless the company is legally barred from doing so and until the order expires, said the ruling. EFF staff attorney Andrew Crocker wrote in the post that the court "recognized the serious harm to free speech these gags represent." He said the judge's ruling said such gag orders "are both prior restraints and content-based restrictions on speech subject to strict scrutiny," which is a high standard, and "that the indefinite gag order imposed on Adobe fails strict scrutiny because the government could make 'no showing ... that Adobe’s speech will threaten the investigation in perpetuity.'” Crocker said the government's arguments in the Adobe case "were nearly identical" to EFF's lawsuit (see 1612010071, 1610070058 and 1604210046) against national security letters to companies issued with accompanying gag orders. Microsoft also has a fight against gag orders (see 1609060043). Adobe said in a statement most "delayed notice orders," as it called them, "are reasonably time-limited and typically expire after either 90 or 180 days." But, in this case, the company said the order was "an unconstitutional prior and permanent restraint on its speech. We think the Court's ruling strikes exactly the right balance between the government's interest in protecting its investigation and Adobe's right to keep its customers informed." DOJ declined to comment.