Case Explained: ROSENOW V. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-17

Docket: 3:19-cv-01297-WQH-MMP

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Carsten Rosenow’s Second Amended Complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Yahoo Inc. without leave to amend, holding that the companies’ disclosures of his communications to law enforcement were lawful under specific statutory exceptions. The court applied de novo review to the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and abuse of discretion review to the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Regarding the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2702, the court ruled that the disclosures fell within three statutory exceptions: first, under § 2702(b)(6), the providers disclosed information in connection with reports submitted to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) regarding apparent violations of child exploitation laws; second, under § 2702(b)(3), Rosenow had consented to potential disclosure through his agreement to the companies’ terms of service; and third, under § 2702(b)(5), the disclosures were made to protect the providers’ rights and property by preventing their services from being used for child pornography and complying with mandatory reporting duties. The court rejected Rosenow’s argument that these exceptions were overly broad, noting they are specific as applied to this context. Regarding the Wiretap Act claim, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, the court affirmed dismissal because the statute prohibits only the interception of communications “during transmission,” not the retrieval of stored communications. The court found that Yahoo’s disclosure of Rosenow’s full chat history constituted access to stored data rather than an interception, a conclusion supported by Rosenow’s own admission that the provider retrieved previously stored messages. The court also held that Rosenow forfeited his challenge to the denial of his motion for reconsideration because he failed to sufficiently argue why the district court erred. Additionally, the court noted the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. As a result, the judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed, and no relief is granted to the appellant.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.