August 20, 2017

August 18, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 17, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

District Court Decision Limits Glassdoor’s Ability to Protect Identities of Anonymous Users

Most employers are familiar with Glassdoor, Inc.’s website, which allows current and former employees to post anonymous reviews of an employer.  But Glassdoor is often a thorn in the side of employers because many negative posts are the result of disgruntled employees or competitors seeking an advantage in recruiting.  For the most part, employers have been limited in their ability to have such posts removed from Glassdoor and courts have protected the anonymous posts under First Amendment grounds.1

But a recently unsealed order by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has laid the groundwork for limiting First Amendment protections for anonymous online speakers.  In particular, the District of Arizona held publishers of anonymous speech are not protected by the First Amendment from compelled disclosure of their identities pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. 

In In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 16-03-217 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2017), Glassdoor, Inc. (Glassdoor) filed a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena seeking the identities and “associated reviewer information” of eight reviews posted on Glassdoor’s website.  Id. at slip op. 1-2.  The reviews in question concerned a particular—and redacted—government contractor under federal criminal investigation for fraud.  Id.  Glassdoor objected to producing the information on the grounds its users had a right to anonymous speech under the First Amendment.  Id. at 2.  After the U.S. Government rejected Glassdoor’s proposal to reach out to the reviewers individually to see if they would cooperate, Glassdoor brought a motion to quash the subpoena.  Id.

The court held the “compelling interest/substantial connection” test established in Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1972), did not apply to Glassdoor.  Bursey concerned the attempts of the U.S. government to compel responses to questions propounded to two staff members of The Black Panther newspaper during a grand jury investigation.  Bursey, 466 F.2d at 1065.  The Bursey test requires that, in order to compel responses in a grand jury context, the government prove (1) the government has an “immediate, substantial, and subordinating” interest in the subject matter of the investigation and (2) there is a “substantial connection” between the information it seeks and the government’s interest.  Id. at 1083.  The court distinguished Bursey on the grounds the First Amendment right to speak anonymously is different than the right to “associate with a political group and anonymously print and distribute critiques of the government.”  In re Grand Jury, slip op. at 3 (citing Bursey, 466 F.2d at 1085).  The court seized on the political element of Bursey, and reasoned the reviewers on Glassdoor did not have a political purpose and thus were not subject to the Bursey test.  Id. at 4.

On the contrary, the court held Glassdoor is akin to “reporters, scholars, or newspapers,” whose sources and information do not receive First Amendment protection under Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).  Id. at 5 (citing Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 684).  The court reasoned that discussing employment conditions, even those of publicly-funded employers, did not make Glassdoor an advocacy group or subject to any heightened protection.  Id.  As a result, the court ultimately denied the motion to quash the subpoena, and held “Glassdoor, like any newsman asserting a privilege on behalf of its sources, must respond to the grand jury subpoena.”  Id.

This case has potential implications for both employers and internet service provider (ISP) subpoena respondents.2  Read narrowly, this case holds the identities behind anonymous speech about a given employer are not protected from compelled disclosure via grand jury subpoena.  Read more broadly, this case may result in other ISP publishers of anonymous speech being unable to protect the identities of their users against disclosure when compelled by a grand jury subpoena, provided the speech is not related to political advocacy.  Of course, civil subpoenas to obtain the same information are usually subject to greater hurdles.  See, e.g., Awtry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44804, at *53 (the “First Amendment implications of ordering disclosure of the identifying information” from anonymous Glassdoor reviews outweighed “plaintiff’s interest in obtaining” same); Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court, 226 Cal. App. 4th 216, 229 (2014) (civil subpoena could not compel the disclosure of the identity of anonymous internet news article commenter because the commenter’s “privacy interest outweigh[ed] [the propounding party’s] need to discover his or her identity”), overruled in part on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court, No. S227228, 2017 Cal. LEXIS 5124 (July 13, 2017).  Accordingly, concerns this case could be used to obtain the identities of those behind negative employer reviews for the purposes of retaliation should be limited.

The proceedings in the District of Arizona were only recently partially unsealed by an order on a stipulated motion to unseal.  In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Unseal (June 13, 2017).  On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit ordered the case will be decided in a secret proceeding, with sealed briefing, and with no amicus briefing.  In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 17-16221 (July 6, 2017).  Until the Ninth Circuit weighs in, anonymous Internet speech is subject to lesser protections in the District of Arizona and any other courts that follow the District Court’s reasoning.


1 See, e.g., Awtry v. Glassdoor, Inc., No. 16-mc-80028-JCS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44804 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2016) (denying motion to enforce Glassdoor’s compliance with third party subpoena to disclose information related to negative reviews of plaintiff’s business).

2 The holding of In re Grand Jury Subpoena is not confined to ISPs, but ISPs are publishers that most frequently deal with anonymous speech. 

© 2017 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Joseph Leventhal, Dinsmore Law Firm, San Diego, Litigation Attorney
Partner

Joe is the Office Managing Partner of the San Diego office where he is leading the firm’s efforts to grow its practice and presence throughout California. He is also a member of our Litigation Department focusing on representing clients of all sizes, from Fortune 250 companies to individuals at the highest levels of corporate America and the U.S. government. When serving clients, he has one goal in mind - successful results consistent with their business objectives.

Joe has successfully represented high-profile companies in a variety of complex...

619-400-0498
Jacob Ayres, Litigation Attorney, Dinsmore Law FIrm
Associate

Jacob is a member of the firm’s Litigation Department. His experience includes representing clients in state and federal court in the areas of contract litigation, products liability, and intellectual property. In particular, he has personally and individually handled breach of warranty cases, which included defending depositions, preparing expert witnesses, drafting and arguing motions, and drafting and responding to discovery. Jacob also negotiated and obtained a favorable settlement in a data privacy action for a social media client and has drafted substantial portions of dispositive motions in a supply agreement dispute and an employee-raiding action.

619-450-6756