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

Instacart workers are on strike. How far can it get them?

Instacart activists want a nationwide strike to start today, but many workers are too afraid of the company and feel they can't afford a day off of work.

Gig workers protest in front of an Amazon facility in 2020.

Photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Starting today, an Instacart organizing group is asking the app's gig workers to go on a nationwide strike to demand better payment structures, benefits and other changes to the way the company treats its workers — but if past strikes are any indication, most Instacart users probably won't even notice.

The majority of Instacart workers on forums like Reddit and Facebook appear either unaware of the planned strike or don't plan to participate because they are skeptical of its power, afraid of retaliation from the company or are too reliant on what they do make from the app to be able to afford to take even one day off of the platform. "Not unless someone is going to pay my bills," "It will never work, you will never be able to get every shopper to organize" and "Last time there was a 'strike' Instacart took away our quality bonus pay," are just a few of the comments Instacart shoppers have left in response to news of the strike.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

The way we work has fundamentally changed. COVID-19 upended business dealings and office work processes, putting into hyperdrive a move towards digital collaboration platforms that allow teams to streamline processes and communicate from anywhere. According to the International Data Corporation, the revenue for worldwide collaboration applications increased 32.9 percent from 2019 to 2020, reaching $22.6 billion; it's expected to become a $50.7 billion industry by 2025.

"While consumers and early adopter businesses had widely embraced collaborative applications prior to the pandemic, the market saw five years' worth of new users in the first six months of 2020," said Wayne Kurtzman, research director of social and collaboration at IDC. "This has cemented collaboration, at least to some extent, for every business, large and small."

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Silver

Kate Silver is an award-winning reporter and editor with 15-plus years of journalism experience. Based in Chicago, she specializes in feature and business reporting. Kate's reporting has appeared in the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic's CityLab, Atlas Obscura, The Telegraph and many other outlets.

Protocol | China

WeChat promises to stop accessing users’ photo albums amid public outcry

A tech blogger claimed that popular Chinese apps snoop around users' photo libraries, provoking heightened public concerns over privacy.

A survey launched by Sina Tech shows 94% of the some 30,000 responding users said they are not comfortable with apps reading their photo libraries just to allow them to share images faster in chats.

Photo: S3studio via Getty Images

A Chinese tech blogger dropped a bombshell last Friday, claiming on Chinese media that he found that several popular Chinese apps, including the Tencent-owned chat apps WeChat and QQ, as well as the Alibaba-owned ecommerce app Taobao, frequently access iPhone users' photo albums in the background even when those apps are not in use.

The original Weibo post from the tech blogger, using the handle of @Hackl0us, provoked intense debates about user privacy on the Chinese internet and consequently prompted WeChat to announce that it would stop fetching users' photo album data in the background.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu is a reporter with Protocol | China. Her writing has appeared in Foreign Policy, The New York Times and POLITICO, among other publications. She can be reached at shenlu@protocol.com.

Protocol | Enterprise

As businesses struggle with data, enterprise tech is cleaning up

Enterprise tech's vision of "big data" largely fell flat inside silos. But now, an army of providers think they've figured out the problems. And customers and investors are taking note.

Corporate data tends to settle in silos that makes it harder to understand the bigger picture. Enterprise tech vendors smell a lucrative opportunity.

Photo: Jim Witkowski/Unsplash

Data isn't the new oil; it's the new gold. And in any gold rush, the ones who make the most money in the long run are the tool makers and suppliers.

Enterprise tech vendors have long peddled a vision of corporate America centered around so-called "big data." But there was a big problem: Many of those projects failed to produce a return. An army of new providers think they've finally figured out the problem, and investors and customers are taking note.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a senior reporter at Protocol covering enterprise software, including industry giants like Salesforce, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle. He previously covered emerging technology for Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Protocol | Policy

What Frances Haugen’s SEC complaint means for the rest of tech

Haugen argues Facebook misled investors by failing to disclose its platforms' harms. If the SEC bites, the rest of tech could be next.

The question is whether the SEC will find the contents of Haugen's complaint relevant to investors' interests.

Photo: Matt McClain-Pool/Getty Images

Whistleblowers like former Facebook staffer Frances Haugen have pretty limited options when it comes to actually seeking redress for the harms they've observed and documented. There's no federal privacy law in the U.S. to speak of, Section 230 protects platforms for online speech and companies like Facebook are under no obligation to share any information with lawmakers, or anyone else, about what's happening on their sites.

But there is one agency that not only governs all publicly-traded companies, including in tech, but also offers whistleblowers like Haugen the opportunity for a payout: the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Latest Stories