Facebook, Inc. v. City of S.F.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Accordingly, we solicited supplemental briefing concerning the proper interpretation of section 2702. In that briefing, all parties now concede that communications configured by the social media user to be public fall within section 2702(b)(3)'s lawful consent exception to section 2702's prohibition, and, as a result, may be disclosed by a provider. As we will explain, this concession is well taken in light of the relevant statutory language and legislative history.
The parties differ, however, concerning the scope of the statutory lawful consent exception as applied in this setting.…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United States v. RodgersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Michael Snow v. Directv, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- In re White, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Facebook Inc. v. Daron WintDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
- Facebook, Inc. v. James PepeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2020
- Facebook, Inc. v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2020
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.