Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring legal issues in the news, and the law brief is brought to you by American Arbitration Association. Business Disputes are Inevitable Brasilve fest or with the American Arbitration Association, the global leader and alternative dispute resolution for over ninety
years more at a d r dot org. Today, Bloomberg Law host Jum Grosso and Michael Best discuss a case over requirements for Internet providers and services like Facebook and Google when they are served with search warrants for customers data. They speak with Orang care, a professor at George Washington University Law School, or what was Facebook's argument as to why it should be able to challenge the search warrants
issued by a judge. Facebook has two different arguments. One argument they made is that the statute that governs access to warrants for email accounts gives them that right. And then the second argument they had is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution allows them to represent their users and stand in for their position and and challenge the
warrants as if they were the users. Isn't this just another outgrowth of the fact that the law really hasn't figured out how to deal with the idea that we put so much of our personal information onto third party computer servers. Now, I don't think it's so much that the law hasn't caught up as that the law isn't sure of how to treat the problem. So here's what's different. When the government wants to search your house, they get a warrant and they break down your door and they
search your house. They don't get somebody's permission, they don't go through your landlord, they don't go through anyone. They just do it. On the other hand, when they get a warrant, when the government gets a warrant to search an email account, they don't break into the email server. They don't themselves, you know, go to Google and and
and break into its servers. Instead, they work with the company, the third party provider, Facebook, Google, Yahoo and the like and say, hey, you get us the information on our behalf. And the question is does that change things or not?
Does that introduction of the big third party company that's in charge charge of the account mean that there's a new person who can step in and say, hey, wait, we don't think this is lawful or do you treat it just like a traditional warrant, which you know, if you if the police execute a warrant at your door, you can't stop them and say, hey, wait a minute, I don't think this warrant is lawful. You've got to
get out of the way while they search your house. Well, but the you know, the third party argument, what is it about the computer world that might make that different? What make that what might make that different is that the way the government is getting the materials is very similar to subpoena. So what's tricky about the way the internet works is that warrants are executed like subpoenas. Subpoenas
do allow pre enforcement challenge. If the government serves a subpoena on Facebook for customer records, it's clear Facebook can challenge that subpoena. The question is whether they can challenge a warrant that's executed just like a subpoena and as or terror a professor at George Washington University Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Law host Jing Grosso and Michael Best. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio and now among
the top legal stories from Bloomberg Law. JP Morgan has been accused of nicolin dimon jury members with debit cards. In handful of cities and counties. JP Morgan Chase handles juror compensation. They issue debit cards instead of paper checks for the jurors. The cards come loaded with fees for balance inquiries and for using non chase a t m S. One former jur in Washington d C. Has sued JP Morgan, claiming it's violating the Consumer Protection Act. The bank says
it's getting out of the juror pay business. Spinal Tap is getting back together to demand more money. The movie Rock Band is suing the distributor of the called film This Is Spinal Tap. A lawsuit is demanding four hundred million dollars from Vivendi for fraudulent accounting and unfair business practices. Vendi says it doesn't comment on on litigation and that's this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Beginning dot Com.
Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Bena dot com for more information.