Case

Last week, on June 23, 2011, the Vermont Supreme Court, in State v. Simmons, --- A.3d ----, 2011 WL 2474275, affirmed a trial court decision that applied the "settled Fourth Amendment precedent" that "internet users have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their subscriber information, the length of their stored files, and other noncontent data to which service providers must have access."  In addition to this interpretation of federal law, the Court also agreed with the trial court's conclusion that Vermont's Constitution "affords no privacy protection in an internet service provider's subscriber address or use information disclosing non-content data."

In the last two weeks, two courts--a New York state court and a federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C.--considered the issue of when to unmask anonymous online speakers. The New York state court considered the issue in the context of a pre-action discovery request and ordered Google to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger so that a potential plaintiff could file a suit for defamation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considered what standard to require when presented with a motion to quash or enforce a subpoena seeking the identity of an anonymous defendant. These two cases represent the latest developments in the evolution of judicial rules governing the unmasking of anonymous online speakers.

121 P.3d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005)
Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's holding that Acacia violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by delivering unsolicited text message advertisements to Joffe's mobile phone. The appellate court determined that the TCPA applies to text messages, and application as such did not violate Acacia's First Amendment rights.