This is the new MLex platform. Existing customers should continue to use the existing MLex platform until migrated.
For any queries, please contact Customer Services or your Account Manager. Dismiss

Erroneous privacy ruling for Apple could affect interpretation of Wiretap Act, plaintiffs tell appeals court

( July 1, 2016, 22:35 GMT | Official Statement) -- MLex Summary: Plaintiff Adam Backhaut said in an opening brief filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a district court judge erred in granting summary judgment for Apple. "The District Court in granting summary judgment employed a number of assumptions which are without an evidentiary basis in the record, and also engrafted an additional 'one-step interception' requirement for liability onto the Wiretap Act," Backhaut said. If that ruling stands, he said, "companies will be able to systematically intercept messages as long as they can claim that such interception is done routinely."See document below....

Prepare for tomorrow’s regulatory change, today

MLex identifies risk to business wherever it emerges, with specialist reporters across the globe providing exclusive news and deep-dive analysis on the proposals, probes, enforcement actions and rulings that matter to your organization and clients, now and in the longer term.


Know what others in the room don’t, with features including:

  • Daily newsletters for Antitrust, M&A, Trade, Data Privacy & Security, Technology, AI and more
  • Custom alerts on specific filters including geographies, industries, topics and companies to suit your practice needs
  • Predictive analysis from expert journalists across North America, the UK and Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific
  • Curated case files bringing together news, analysis and source documents in a single timeline

Experience MLex today with a 14-day free trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login