Ireland: Microsoft Warrant Ruling And Its Implications For Cloud And Communications Service Providers

Last Updated: 26 November 2014
Article by Rob Corbet and Claire O’Brien
Most Read Contributor in Ireland, October 2018

In the matter of a warrant to search a certain email account controlled and maintained by Microsoft Corporation, 13 Mag. 2814

In April, a US magistrate judge compelled production of the contents of a user's email account stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin. If this ruling stands, US service providers may be compelled to produce customer's data regardless of where it resides.

In December 2013, the Southern District Court of New York directed Microsoft Corporation to produce to US law enforcement agencies the contents of a customer email account contained on a server located in Ireland. The case, which is ongoing at the time of writing, is controversial and has potentially far reaching ramifications for international providers of cloud and communications services.

The Court determined the case by reference to the US Stored Communications Act of 1986 ('SCA'), which forms part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ('ECPA'). Under the original application in December 2013, Judge James C. Francis IV granted a warrant under the SCA (the 'Warrant') to compel the provision of detailed customer data to the US government notwithstanding that the data was held by a separate Microsoft subsidiary company in Ireland. Microsoft Corporation disputed theWarrant and applied to have it vacated on the basis that a warrant could not have extraterritorial effect and that it was therefore invalid. In April 2014, the matter was referred back to Judge Francis who denied Microsoft's motion.

TheWarrant was granted to enable the search and seizure of information associated with an email account that was 'stored at premises owned,maintained, controlled or operated by Microsoft Corporation, a Company headquartered at One MicrosoftWay, RedmondWA.' Microsoft complied by sending non-content information contained on servers in the US and filed to quash theWarrant to the extent that it applied to content information stored in Dublin on the basis that federal courts do not have the authority to order the production of material outside of their jurisdiction.

Microsoft's analysis was acknowledged by Judge Francis to be consistent with the language of the SCA. However the judge went on to review case law on statutory interpretation by reference to the structure of the SCA as well as its legislative history. In a surprising judgment, the court concluded in support of the government's view that the normal presumption against extraterritoriality did not apply in this instance.

Part of the reasoning used by the court to find that normal extraterritoriality rules did not apply to a warrant issued under the SCA was that it was a hybrid instrument which had some characteristics of a subpoena which, as some case law suggested, could be valid overseas. However, equally, the instrument bore characteristics of a traditional warrant.While characteristics of both instruments are briefly explored in the ruling, the court settled upon the definition of the instrument as a subpoena for the purposes of extraterritoriality, although the precise basis on which this distinction was determined is not entirely clear.

The Court did consider United States v. Bach, 310 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2002), which used the warrant standard to assess the instrument in question, stating that 'Congress called them warrants and we find that Congress intended them to be treated as warrants.'However, Judge Francis distinguished this ruling on the basis that this statement was not made in the context of extraterritoriality (although the judgment does not explain the basis on which an instrument could be considered a 'subpoena' for the purposes of extraterritoriality while being called a 'warrant' in the legislation).

The ruling relies upon other perceived linguistic ambiguities contained in Senate reports around the time of the adoption of the SCA. It also uses notes that one of the notable provisions of the US Patriot Act was to provide for nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence so as to alleviate the burden on federal district courts in California and Virginia where many internet service providers are located.

The Judge made the novel determination that this national principle was capable of being extended on an international basis. Microsoft appealed the April 2014 ruling but following oral submissions, the District Court issued a further order on 31 July confirming its original ruling. Microsoft issued appeal papers while the government brought a motion to deny the appeal and to direct Microsoft to comply with the Warrant.

The issue then arose as to whether the case met the conditions required for Microsoft to be granted a stay pending appeal. These conditions are similar to the conditions required for a civil injunction; namely (a) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (b) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured if the stay is not granted; (c) whether the issuance of a stay would substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (d) public interest. The Court noted that an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena is not a final decision, the reasoning being procedural i.e. if one objects to a subpoena then the correct way to challenge it is to refuse to comply, to be held in contempt and to appeal the contempt proceedings. Chief US District Court Judge Preska denied the application for a stay, finding it an inefficient use of resources to have the matter before the District and Appeals courts at the same time. This left Microsoft in the position of having to put itself in contempt of Court if it wished to maintain its challenge to the Warrant.

International law

The Judge Francis ruling is remarkable when viewed in the context of international law. A fundamental rule of international law is that domestic statutes have no extraterritorial force. This rule was upheld in Zheng v. Yahoo! Inc., No. C-08-1068MMC, 2009WL 4430297 (N.D. Cal. 2009). In that case, the plaintiffs sought to hold the defendant liable for Yahoo! China's alleged provision of personal data to Chinese law enforcement agencies. The plaintiffs argued that the fact that their communications were routed through the defendant's servers was enough to impose liability under the ECPA.

In Zheng, the court found that an electronic communication must be intercepted or disclosed in the US to create ECPA liability. Judge Chesney also considered the legislative history of the ECPA. She recited theWiretap Act and referred to case law1 which stated that the statute had no application outside the US. Judge Chesney came to a different conclusion: 'The ECPA did not amend the portion of theWiretap Act that made no provision for obtaining authorization for wiretaps in a foreign country, nor did the ECPA, in amending theWiretap Act and creating the SCA, reference in any manner activities occurring outside the United States [...] Congress has not made clear an intent that the ECPA apply outside the United States, and, indeed, the available legislative history clearly reflects the congressional intent that the ECPA not apply outside the United States.'

Mutual legal assistance

Another remarkable feature of the ruling in Microsoft is the lack of any meaningful consideration of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty ('MLAT') between Ireland and the US. The MLAT process is an international mechanism for enabling law enforcement authorities to obtain access to evidence located in another Treaty Member's country. Under the Irish Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, the Irish authorities rarely refuse to execute a request from US authorities.

In this case, Judge Francis found that Congress was 'unlikely' to have intended to require law enforcement to use the MLAT process when acting upon an SCA warrant because it is sometimes slow;Member States may refuse requests; and it is unavailable when no treaty is in place. Several Amici Curiae briefs have been submitted. In one of them2, counsel for Cisco and Apple claim that '[...]by dismissing the [MLAT] process out of hand with no factual findings regarding the Irish MLAT at issue - the Magistrate placed the burden of reconciling conflicting international laws squarely on U.S. providers. Yet the government, not private parties, is best suited to navigate complex sovereignty issues, especially those caused by a novel extraterritorial application of U.S. law. And it has chosen to use the MLAT process to strike the correct balance.'

Data protection law

Another consequence of allowing the extraterritorial application of theWarrant was to potentially compel Microsoft Ireland to breach data protection laws. In Europe, the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA regulate data transfers between law enforcement bodies and the circumstances under which data can be transferred to non-EU Member States. The Irish Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 permit the transfer of personal data on foot of any 'enactment, or by rule of law or order of a court.'3 However, under first principles of statutory interpretation, a data controller could only safely rely on this provision in the context of an Irish enactment or Irish court order. A US Court Order is no more binding on Microsoft Ireland as an Irish Court Order would be on Microsoft Corporation in the US. It is for this very reason that the MLAT process was established as an order executed under the MLAT Treaty and the Irish Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 would clearly be permitted on data protection grounds.

At a time when US surveillance and data security laws are under scrutiny in EU, it is regrettable that the US Court did not give further consideration to the MLAT process in this case.


It is understood that Microsoft is continuing to appeal theWarrant. At the time of writing, there has been a groundswell of support from providers all of whom have filed Amici Curiae supporting Microsoft's case.

This article first appeared in the September-October 2014 issue of E-Commerce Law Reports.

This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions