Cal.2d: NDO in SW to Microsoft doesn’t violate state statute or 1A

A nondisclosure order in a search warrant to an electronic service provider does not violate state law or the First Amendment. Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Court, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 17 (2d Dist. Jan. 14, 2026):

This case involves a fact pattern that has not been addressed in any California published opinion: When the government serves a search warrant on an electronic service provider seeking information about the target of a criminal investigation, under what circumstances may the trial court issue a nondisclosure order (NDO) prohibiting the provider from disclosing the existence or contents of the warrant to third parties, including its customers?

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) served petitioner Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) with a search warrant for electronic data associated with an email account assigned to a University of Southern California (USC) graduate student who was under investigation for committing rape. The warrant was served along with an NDO prohibiting Microsoft from notifying certain individuals about the search warrant for 90 days, including the target of the investigation, Sizhe Weng, and anyone at USC. Microsoft concedes the NDO’s validity with respect to its prohibition against notifying Weng of the warrant’s existence. The issues in this case are limited, therefore, to whether the NDO’s prohibition against notifying a contact at USC of the existence of the warrant violates the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA; Pen. Code § 1546 et seq.) and/or infringes on Microsoft’s First Amendment free speech rights. We conclude the trial court made the required findings under CalECPA and that the NDO withstands strict scrutiny.