The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Just Published: "Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment Rights"
Now out in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
In the last year or two, the U.S. Department of Justice has been arguing in federal courts of appeals that Terms of Service can narrow or eliminate Fourth Amendment rights in online accounts. If the government can win on this issue, it will largely defeat any claims to Fourth Amendment protection online. But as I argue in my just-published article, Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment Rights, 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. 287 (2024), these arguments are mistaken. Here's the abstract:
Almost everything you do on the Internet is governed by Terms of Service. The language in Terms of Service typically gives Internet providers broad rights to address potential account misuse. But do these Terms alter Fourth Amendment rights, either diminishing or even eliminating constitutional rights in Internet accounts? In the last five years, many courts have ruled that they do. These courts treat Terms of Service like a rights contract: by agreeing to use an Internet account subject to broad Terms of Service, you give up your Fourth Amendment rights.
This Article argues that the courts are wrong. Terms of Service have little or no effect on Fourth Amendment rights. Fourth Amendment rights are rights against the government, not private parties. Terms of Service can define relationships between private parties, but private contracts cannot define Fourth Amendment rights. This is true across the range of Fourth Amendment doctrines, including the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test, consent, abandonment, third-party consent, and the private search doctrine. Courts that have linked Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment rights are mistaken, and their reasoning should be rejected.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I will totally admit this is a hot take, and I haven't read your no-doubt excellent article 🙂
But the proposition makes sense to me. If I lease an apartment and it has a clause that says "landlord O.Kerr can enter at any time he feels like it" ... that doesn't mean I agreed to let the government poke through my underwear drawer any time they feel like it.
Okay, but did you consent to landlord O.Kerr selling pictures of the inside of your underwear drawer to the government?
Isn’t this essentially a property issue? Why don’t agreements determine how the bundle of rights that is ownership of the property gets divided up, and in particular, who has the right to give consent to the property’s use by others?
There is established law that says that, for example, the landlord of a leasehold doesn’t have the right to consent to entry by third parties or government agents, only the tenant has that right. But in the absence of such law, landlords would be free to draw up a lease agreement that says that they can.
Why don’t internet accounts work the same way? Why doesn’t it depend on the specific terms?
There could be a body of law set up by Congress or state legislatures or courts setting rules for who owns what and who is allowed to do what and invalidating contrary contracts. But in the absence of such a body of law, why aren’t people free to agree to whatever they want?
I agree that an agreement dividing access rights between the service provider and the user doesn’t let the government automatically have access without the consent of either. But it could permit the government to need the consent of only one of them. And the one needed might be the service provider, not the user.
Yes but as we have seen, some service providers might be beholden to government for certain benefits or simply may want to curry favor with government to avoid future regulatory hassles or burdens. I.e, the incentives for the company to cozy up to government and 'cooperate' with say a warrantless request for user account data are in direct opposition to their customers 4th amendment privacy rights.
I am not saying that the govt as regulator makes the company an agent of the government but in some probably rare circumstances that could be the case. Assuming that is generally not the case; the incentives of the company vs the right to privacy of the customer balancing test should presumptively always favor the customer. When a customer gets pulled over or arrested by the cops for unrelated activity and cops recover a cell phone and the person refuses consent to search, the cops need a warrant to get into the phone. Imagine the same scenario - person refuses. But the cop sees a snapchat app icon on the screen. So they just go to snapchat and get the data straight from them that the customer refused to provide? Seems rather problematic.
Kerr is clear, straightforward, and makes sense. I will not try to praise or critique any of it as a matter of law. But I hope he proves right.
It's very simple. As has been stated before, Americans should not have to give up their rights to participate in modern online conveniences.
Sorry, your papers are fair game without a warrant, because someone holds it in their computer for you.
Weasels gonna wease. The power hungry aggregate power.
I'd also apply this to phone "metadata", an insidious claim that "lets government flesh out networks", as if the Tyrant King George III wouldn't have used that against the Founding Fathers, causing them to gate it behind warrant requirements.
While we're at it, if a company makes a market in electronic funds transfers, they cannot block legal transactions. This stops social cancel and similar pressures from shutting down legal business by attacking banks. "Banks better watch their reputations!" weasels the weasel in government.
Professor Kerr....very happy to see you here more.
Let's hope Prof. Kerr is correct and that his view eventually prevails.
The arguments in this are very weak. The main scenario that actually turns up is III D, even if of course the government is going to throw everything at the wall and use the other defenses first. Your explanation of why "I consent to law enforcement reading my private mail" isn't consent to law enforcement reading your private mail is *very* cursory.