How California's Identity Fraud Law Has Been Interpreted To Criminalize Defamation, Publicity Rights Violations And More
from the yikes dept
Eugene Volokh has a somewhat terrifying look at how very broad interpretations of California's identity fraud law, California Penal Code § 530.5(a) has been so broadly interpreted by the courts that it, in effect, creates a crime out of things that were normally considered, at best, civil offenses. This includes defamation, publicity rights infringements and disclosure of private facts. He discusses a few cases, but focuses on a key one that we've mentioned: the state of California's recent legal win over Kevin Bollaert, a revenge porn creep. In our writeup, we were mainly concerned with how the ruling seemed to run against Section 230's protections, but as Volokh makes clear, it's much, much worse than that.As Volokh notes, among the charges that Bollaert was found guilty over, there was the § 502.5(a) claim of identity theft. And, he points out, nothing in the ruling limited it to revenge porn or extortion. It was just "identifying information" for the purpose of committing a tort, which suddenly becomes a criminal offense:
That's... crazy. Criminalizing defamation and publicity rights infringement by broadly interpreting an identity fraud law seems very, very problematic. As Volokh notes again, it seems extra troubling that this seems to have happened without any real legislative discussion or deliberation. Again, these things may be civil offenses, but to turn them into criminal offenses is a situation that can and will be abused. Not many people will cry for Kevin Bollaert, but the precedent this sets is potentially terrifying:But nothing in Bollaert’s § 530.5 discussion was limited to revenge porn, or to extortion.
Say, for instance, that Kendra Schmollaert, Kevin Bollaert’s second cousin, has a blog with a couple of thousand readers. She publishes a blog post that mentioned an acquaintance’s formerly private sex scandal (or medical problem) and gives the acquaintance’s name. That may well constitute the tort of disclosure of private facts, and maybe Schmollaert should be liable for that. (I think the tort is too broad and vague to be constitutional, but most courts disagree with me on that.) But, to her surprise — and, I suspect, to the surprise of most media lawyers — a prosecutor decides to charge Schmollaert criminally. Guilty!
- Schmollaert willfully published the aquaintance’s “identifying information” — the full name, and possibly some indication of location (e.g., if Schmollaert says the acquaintance is Schmollaert’s neighbor).
- Schmollaert did so with the purpose of committing a tort, namely the disclosure of private facts. (True, Schmollaert wasn’t doing this just for the sake of committing a tort, but neither was Bollaert — Schmollaert wanted to tell an interesting story, or maybe expose an acquaintance whom Schmollaert disliked, while Bollaert wanted to make money, and both purposefully used people’s identifying information as a means of accomplishing that goal.)
- Schmollaert didn’t reveal any nude photographs — but nothing in § 530.5(a) says anything whatever about nudity, or about photographs; as the courts have interpreted the statute, tortious disclosure of private facts is enough.
- Schmollaert also wasn’t impersonating anyone — but neither was Bollaert.
Or say that Schmollaert instead starts selling T-shirts that depict photographs of celebrities, with captions that give the celebrities’ names. Under California law, that’s a tort, both statutory and common-law, and might lead to liability. But again Schmollaert also turns out to be guilty of a crime:
- She willfully published the celebrities’ “personal identifying information” (“full names, … as well as the … photographs themselves.”
- She did so with the purpose of infringing the celebrities’ right of publicity.
I don’t think the California Legislature was trying, with § 530.5, to so broadly criminalize tortious speech. But that’s how California courts have interpreted the statute.It remains to be seen how widely this gets abused, but it is certainly a big concern.
And this also helps show why many commentators — myself included — criticize proposed statutes based on the possible scope of their broad and vague language, rather than just focusing on the particular problem that led to the proposal. Once a statute is enacted, prosecutors will often push them to the limits of the language, especially when the defendants are bad people doing bad things (e.g., Bollaert’s revenge porn blackmail racket). And courts will often (not always, but often) read the language broadly. The story of § 530.5 is a classic example.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, criminal defamation, defamation, extortion, identity fraud, identity theft, kevin bollaert, publicity rights, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's stretching things a little. Bollaert was doing this for the sake of committing a tort, because the way he wanted to make money involved committing a tort as an integral part of the business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OK, I'll bite. What tort, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you mean where it said that Bollaert wasn't doing it for the sake of committing a tort. I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A civil wrong that unjustly causes harm to another individual or to suffer loss by that individual which causes liability for the person causing the wrong. It is usually what you go to civil court to fight over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll risk a guess: a whole freaking lot. There are plenty of idiots all around that will use whatever means to destroy the lives of people they don't like for whatever reasons (see SLAPP lawsuits) but why just ruin them financially when you can put them in jail? Not to mention this excellent Government that is not vindictive at all against those that disagree with it, much less those who expose wrongdoings.
So, yeah, a whole freaking lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This could lead to fun things like, oh, say some complete waste of skin does something like doxxing and revenge porn or what have you on thousands of people. One of those victims discovers who this is and writes something up exposing the person who is doing this, revealing things that qualify as private information. And of course they are doing this with intent to hurt the person, not merely to warn others. Guess who is now liable under the law, as it is being applied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linda Ellis and Matthew Chan
Linda Ellis, of "The dash" infamy, had here home address revealed on Matthew Chan's website. Would that situation have lead to criminal liability? In spite of the truth of that information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds to me like..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]