Source Code: Your daily look at what matters in tech.

source-codesource codeauthorEmily BirnbaumNoneWant your finger on the pulse of everything that's happening in tech? Sign up to get David Pierce's daily newsletter.64fd3cbe9f
×

Get access to Protocol

Your information will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

I’m already a subscriber
Politics

What Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court would mean for the future of tech

Topics at the heart of tech policy don't map easily along partisan lines, so any business benefits of an extra Repulican justice come with uncertainty.

What Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court would mean for the future of tech

Upon first glance, it would seem like Amy Coney Barrett's arrival would bode well for all businesses, tech or otherwise.

Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Having another Republican justice on the Supreme Court might be good for most businesses. For tech, it's more complicated.

Over the next decade, the Supreme Court will likely be asked to weigh in on issues that shape the future of the tech industry, including government surveillance, U.S. privacy laws, intellectual property rights, antitrust and content moderation. Its decisions could determine how far the government is allowed to reach into companies like Facebook and Google and what the constitution says about digital rights.

If President Trump successfully nominates Amy Coney Barrett to the high court, he would be locking in a bulletproof conservative majority of five justices to make those decisions, ushering in the most dramatic ideological tilt to the court in the past 50 years.

Upon first glance, it would seem like Barrett's arrival would bode well for all businesses, tech or otherwise. A conservative-leaning Supreme Court would be likelier to eschew aggressive regulatory efforts and side with tech companies on issues like taxes.

"I expect this pick to be very focused on so-called 'corporate rights,'" said Gigi Sohn, a former FCC counselor in the Obama administration.

But many of the topics at the heart of tech policy — including privacy, antitrust, Section 230 and intellectual property — do not map easily along partisan lines, and experts said tech companies should brace for some decisions that they won't like.

"On technology, particularly in recent years, the court in any given case has had strange bedfellows," said Ed McAndrew, a partner with DLA Piper who worked on cybercrime with the Department of Justice for 10 years. The late Justice Ruth Bater Ginsburg, for instance, positioned herself against consumer advocates on IP rights, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices in the antitrust case Apple v. Pepper.

"The implications for those issues — net neutrality, antitrust, cyber — are less clear-cut than in other areas because there are cross-currents that may pull a more conservative court in [a] different direction," said Pantelis Michalopoulos, a partner with Steptoe & Johnson.

A short track record

There's an extremely small body of opinions from Barrett to examine and extrapolate from. She has only been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2017 and has spent most of that time on relatively uncontroversial cases with little relevance to the tech industry. She has a prolific history of academic scholarship, some of which is related to issues like faith and state's rights, but appears to have stayed out of any of the core areas of jurisprudence that tech cares about, according to Corbin Barthold, the internet policy counsel with TechFreedom, a tech-focused think tank.

Barthold has been poring over the records of the forerunners for Supreme Court nomination in recent weeks and so far has found that none of them has weighed in at length on tech issues. That puts them at odds with former nominees — such as the most recent, Kavanaugh, who, prior to joining the Supreme Court, issued a lengthy opinion arguing that the Federal Communications Commission was not authorized to impose net neutrality regulations.

Several experts said they were paying attention to see if Barrett would be more of a "law and order" conservative or a libertarian on issues like government surveillance and data privacy. Chief Justice John Roberts, for instance, sided with the liberal justices in the landmark case Carpenter vs. U.S., which found the government violated the Fourth Amendment by accessing cell phone location data without a search warrant. The next several years will almost certainly bring more cases about how and why the government can collect certain kinds of data, and many of those could hinge on the leanings of the new judge.

"The Supreme Court discussion that we're now having, I think will launch us into a very broad discussion of privacy rights and where they exist within the Constitution," Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, said during a hearing this week.

The first big tests

Still, we might not have to wait long before we get an indication of how Barrett might think.

She's unlikely to weigh in on Google vs. Oracle, one of the tech industry's most important copyright cases, due to be heard by the Supreme Court in early October. But in late November, the court is set to hear oral arguments for Van Buren v. United States, a case revolving around the main U.S. cybercrime law, and it could be the first major tech case in which Barrett participates. Her opinion would be revealing, because it's extremely unclear where she could come down on the question of what constitutes a federal hacking crime.

Further out, all eyes remain on Section 230, a current focus of the Trump administration's ire. Right now, lower courts are fairly unanimous in their interpretation that 230 offers broad immunity to tech platforms for what their users post, but at some point, the Supreme Court will likely be asked to weigh in on the First Amendment concerns around reforming a law that protects online speech.

For instance, if Trump wins in November and his administration continues to pursue his Section 230 executive order, the Supreme Court will likely be asked to weigh in. Or if Congress passes a reform law, it's possible it will end up before the high court. Either way, the new justice's opinions about the breadth of the First Amendment will become very important, said Berin Szoka, the president and founder of TechFreedom.

But at this point, it's too difficult to assess where a conservative judge would come down on Section 230. They would be facing enormous political headwinds from Trump and Republican allies who want to see Section 230 limited because they claim it enables the censorship of right-wing speech. But it's an issue deeply mired in free speech concerns, which conservative often favor.

"[Republicans] have … tended to favor corporate free speech rights, which would seem to bode well for tech companies, though again it is Republicans in Congress driving much of the effort to restrict the freedom of tech companies to decide what goes out on their platforms," said Mark Lemley, director of the Stanford Law School Program in Law, Science and Technology.

A wild card for now

There are a number of important tech cases bubbling up in lower courts that could make their way to the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice asked the courts to block California's net neutrality law; the broadband industry has sued to declare a Maine privacy law unconstitutional; a Section 230 case, Malwarebytes Inc. vs. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, was recently petitioned to the Supreme Court; and FTC vs. Qualcomm could be petitioned to the high court after the FTC asked an appeals court to reconsider its decision.

It's clear that Barrett will be a reliable vote on social issues ranging from abortion to LGBTQ+ rights. But so far, she's considered a wild card on every issue affecting tech — not least because of the way that tech issues such as online speech have become deeply politicized in recent years.

"Putting aside the service they provide or product they sell, [tech companies are] businesses, and a Republican-appointed justice is presumably going to be more favorable across the board," said McAndrew.

"But I think where we see the potential change is with these proposals to use regulation as a cudgel to advance political goals, like speech regulation," he said. "If we go from the traditional Republican view of limiting regulations to the view of 'we can weaponize certain regulations to advance other policy goals,' then we're in a dangerous place."

Protocol | Workplace

In Silicon Valley, it’s February 2020 all over again

"We'll reopen when it's right, but right now the world is changing too much."

Tech companies are handling the delta variant in differing ways.

Photo: alvarez/Getty Images

It's still 2021, right? Because frankly, it's starting to feel like March 2020 all over again.

Google, Apple, Uber and Lyft have now all told employees they won't have to come back to the office before October as COVID-19 case counts continue to tick back up. Facebook, Google and Uber are now requiring workers to get vaccinated before coming to the office, and Twitter — also requiring vaccines — went so far as to shut down its reopened offices on Wednesday, and put future office reopenings on hold.

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.

After a year and a half of living and working through a pandemic, it's no surprise that employees are sending out stress signals at record rates. According to a 2021 study by Indeed, 52% of employees today say they feel burnt out. Over half of employees report working longer hours, and a quarter say they're unable to unplug from work.

The continued swell of reported burnout is a concerning trend for employers everywhere. Not only does it harm mental health and well-being, but it can also impact absenteeism, employee retention and — between the drain on morale and high turnover — your company culture.

Crisis management is one thing, but how do you permanently lower the temperature so your teams can recover sustainably? Companies around the world are now taking larger steps to curb burnout, with industry leaders like LinkedIn, Hootsuite and Bumble shutting down their offices for a full week to allow all employees extra time off. The CEO of Okta, worried about burnout, asked all employees to email him their vacation plans in 2021.

Keep Reading Show less
Stella Garber
Stella Garber is Trello's Head of Marketing. Stella has led Marketing at Trello for the last seven years from early stage startup all the way through its acquisition by Atlassian in 2017 and beyond. Stella was an early champion of remote work, having led remote teams for the last decade plus.
Protocol | China

Livestreaming ecommerce next battleground for China’s nationalists

Vendors for Nike and even Chinese brands were harassed for not donating enough to Henan.

Nationalists were trolling in the comment sections of livestream sessions selling products by Li-Ning, Adidas and other brands.

Collage: Weibo, Bilibili

The No. 1 rule of sales: Don't praise your competitor's product. Rule No. 2: When you are put to a loyalty test by nationalist trolls, forget the first rule.

While China continues to respond to the catastrophic flooding that has killed 99 and displaced 1.4 million people in the central province of Henan, a large group of trolls was busy doing something else: harassing ordinary sportswear sellers on China's livestream ecommerce platforms. Why? Because they determined that the brands being sold had donated too little, or too late, to the people impacted by floods.

Keep Reading Show less
Zeyi Yang
Zeyi Yang is a reporter with Protocol | China. Previously, he worked as a reporting fellow for the digital magazine Rest of World, covering the intersection of technology and culture in China and neighboring countries. He has also contributed to the South China Morning Post, Nikkei Asia, Columbia Journalism Review, among other publications. In his spare time, Zeyi co-founded a Mandarin podcast that tells LGBTQ stories in China. He has been playing Pokemon for 14 years and has a weird favorite pick.
Power

The video game industry is bracing for its Netflix and Spotify moment

Subscription gaming promises to upend gaming. The jury's out on whether that's a good thing.

It's not clear what might fall through the cracks if most of the biggest game studios transition away from selling individual games and instead embrace a mix of free-to-play and subscription bundling.

Image: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Subscription services are coming for the game industry, and the shift could shake up the largest and most lucrative entertainment sector in the world. These services started as small, closed offerings typically available on only a handful of hardware platforms. Now, they're expanding to mobile phones and smart TVs, and promising to radically change the economics of how games are funded, developed and distributed.

Of the biggest companies in gaming today, Amazon, Apple, Electronic Arts, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Nvidia, Sony and Ubisoft all operate some form of game subscription. Far and away the most ambitious of them is Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass, featuring more than 100 games for $9.99 a month and including even brand-new titles the day they release. As of January, Game Pass had more than 18 million subscribers, and Microsoft's aggressive investment in a subscription future has become a catalyst for an industrywide reckoning on the likelihood and viability of such a model becoming standard.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.
Protocol | Policy

Lina Khan wants to hear from you

The new FTC chair is trying to get herself, and the sometimes timid tech-regulating agency she oversees, up to speed while she still can.

Lina Khan is trying to push the FTC to corral tech companies

Photo: Graeme Jennings/AFP via Getty Images

"When you're in D.C., it's very easy to lose connection with the very real issues that people are facing," said Lina Khan, the FTC's new chair.

Khan made her debut as chair before the press on Wednesday, showing up to a media event carrying an old maroon book from the agency's library and calling herself a "huge nerd" on FTC history. She launched into explaining how much she enjoys the open commission meetings she's pioneered since taking over in June. That's especially true of the marathon public comment sessions that have wrapped up each of the two meetings so far.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories