Five days ago, on December 2, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued an opinion requiring OpenAI to produce employees' work-related social media messages in an ongoing copyright lawsuit. The ruling addressed a significant dispute over the scope of California's social media privacy law.

According to court documents filed in the Southern District of New York, the case involves consolidated lawsuits from the Authors Guild and The New York Times Company against OpenAI, Microsoft Corporation, and other defendants. The plaintiffs sought to compel the production of text messages and social media communications from company employees who used personal devices and accounts for work purposes.

The legal dispute centered on California Labor Code § 980, which OpenAI cited as preventing them from accessing employees' social media accounts. On October 23, 2024, plaintiffs in the Authors Cases filed a motion requesting OpenAI to produce text messages and direct messages sent on X.com by certain employees. OpenAI opposed this motion on October 28, 2024, presenting three main arguments: they had already asked three employees to cooperate by providing text messages, X.com messages were irrelevant, and California law prohibited them from requesting access to employees' social media accounts.

The situation became more complex when plaintiffs in the Newspaper Cases filed a similar motion to compel both OpenAI and Microsoft to produce text messages and social media communications, including Slack messages between employees of both companies. OpenAI and Microsoft filed separate opposition letters on November 21, 2024.

Judge Wang's analysis focused on interpreting the scope of California Labor Code § 980. The court noted that no previous cases had addressed whether this law prevents employers from producing work-related messages sent through social media accounts during federal court discovery. The statute's core provisions prohibit employers from requiring employees to disclose usernames and passwords, access social media in the employer's presence, or divulge personal social media content.

The court determined that the law's primary purpose is to prevent employers from demanding ongoing access to employees' personal social media accounts as a condition of employment. According to legal scholars Robert B. Milligan, Daniel P. Hart, and Sienna Chinn-Liu, writing in Competition: The Journal of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association, twenty-six states enacted similar social media privacy laws starting in 2012.

Judge Wang drew a parallel between social media messages and documents stored on personal devices under Bring-Your-Own-Device policies. The court reasoned that just as storing work-related content on personal devices does not shield it from discovery, using personal social media accounts for work communication cannot create a permanent barrier to legal proceedings.

The ruling emphasized that allowing companies to hide discoverable messages by sending them through personal social media accounts would impede federal litigation. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to compel the production of X.com direct messages in both cases, establishing that California Labor Code § 980 does not prevent employers from requesting work-related social media messages during discovery.

The decision addresses only the California Labor Code argument, with remaining issues regarding Slack messages scheduled for discussion at a future conference. Microsoft notably did not argue that messages from its employees were protected under the California statute.