Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

No First Amendment Privacy Protection from Grand Jury Subpoena for Identity of Anonymous Reviewers on Glassdoor.com

By Dena M. Castricone on November 17, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On November 8, 2017, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the anonymity of Glassdoor.com users from a grand jury subpoena.  Glassdoor operates the website Glassdoor.com, which permits employees to post anonymous reviews about their employers.  An Arizona grand jury is investigating a government contractor that administers two VA healthcare programs for fraud and misuse of government funds.  Eight Glassdoor.com users posted anonymous comments about the government contractor indicating that the users may have some information relating to the crimes under investigation.  For example, one comment reads that the contractor “manipulate[s] the system to make money unethically off of veterans/VA.”  Although there are 125 reviews of the contractor, the grand jury subpoena sought only information on the eight individuals whose reviews “referenced potentially fraudulent conduct.”

Glassdoor moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that complying with the subpoena would violate its users’ First Amendment rights to associational privacy and anonymous speech.  The Court rejected both First Amendment arguments.

First, the Court held that there were no associational privacy protections here because the users posting reviews did not have a “common cause” for which they were associating but, rather, the users were posting individual opinions about their employers.  Second, the Court recognized that there is a right to speak anonymously but held that the right is not unlimited.  Relying on a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the anonymity of a reporter’s sources, the Court explained that anonymity is not protected in a grand jury investigation where the investigation is conducted in good faith.

In addition, the Court pointed to Glassdoor’s privacy policy and found that it undermined Glassdoor’s arguments.  The privacy policy notifies users before the users’ first post on the site that identifying information of its users could be revealed in response to a subpoena or court order.

Finally, the Court explained that the relevancy, admissibility and specificity standards applicable to trial subpoenas do not apply to grand jury subpoenas because applying such standards would frustrate the purpose of the grand jury process.  The Glassdoor grand jury subpoena is seeking information only on the eight users who posted reviews that indicate possible knowledge of improper conduct by the contractor.  According to the Court, the limited grand jury subpoena meets the good faith standard.

The case can be found here.

Photo of Dena M. Castricone Dena M. Castricone

Dena M. Castricone, CIPP/US is the chair of the Privacy and Cybersecurity group and a member of the Long Term Care and Health Care groups.  She also serves as Chair of the firm’s Women Expanding Business initiative and co-chair of the firm’s Pro…

Dena M. Castricone, CIPP/US is the chair of the Privacy and Cybersecurity group and a member of the Long Term Care and Health Care groups.  She also serves as Chair of the firm’s Women Expanding Business initiative and co-chair of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee.  Prior to joining Murtha Cullina, Dena served as a law clerk to the Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Frank J. Williams.

As the Chair of the Privacy and Cybersecurity group and a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US), Dena provides the full complement of data breach coaching services to business and health care clients including breach notification to individuals and various government entities.  Related to data breaches, she also counsels clients on the creation of information security, incident response plans and other proactive measures.  Additionally, Dena advises clients on compliance with state, federal and international privacy laws including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as well as many others. Dena has written extensively on privacy and cybersecurity issues and she is the Co-Editor of Privacy and Cybersecurity Perspectives.  Read More

Read more about Dena M. CastriconeEmailDena M.'s Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity Perspectives
  • Organization:
    Murtha Cullina LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo