City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Homeaway.com, Inc.
21 Cal. App. 5th 1116
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- San Francisco tax collector served an administrative subpoena (2016 subpoena) on HomeAway seeking: (1) identifying data for hosts offering San Francisco accommodations (2012–response date) and (2) data for bookings involving San Francisco properties in the same period. Requests included names, addresses, contact info, payment sources, and other identifying fields.
- HomeAway operates an online marketplace; it stores account information, messages between users (HomeAway Secured Communication), and reservation/payment data (some processed by third parties). HomeAway's Terms and Privacy Policy disclose potential government disclosure by subpoena.
- City issued the subpoena under San Francisco Business & Tax Regulations Code §6.4-1 to investigate possible noncompliance with transient occupancy tax (TOT) and business registration requirements; HomeAway refused and contested enforcement in superior court.
- Trial court granted enforcement, finding insufficient evidence that HomeAway was an ECS or RCS under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the subpoena was not overbroad or burdensome, and First Amendment claims were not implicated; enforcement was stayed for appeal.
- On appeal HomeAway argued: SCA bars disclosure (as an ECS/RCS), constitutional rights (Fourth/First Amendment/association), and lack of local/state statutory authorization; the court affirmed enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (HomeAway) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SCA prohibits enforcement of the subpoena | The subpoena seeks customer/transaction records; an administrative subpoena authorized by local law fits SCA §2703(c)(2) for customer-identifying records | HomeAway: platform is an ECS/RCS; SCA requires warrant or other higher procedure for the requested records; local subpoena is not authorized by state/federal statute | Held: Subpoena seeks customer-identifying records covered by §2703(c)(2); SCA permits administrative subpoenas authorized by state law; enforcement does not violate SCA |
| Whether the subpoena compels electronic communications (content) protected by higher SCA safeguards | City: it does not seek message content, logins, forum posts, or private communications; seeks extracted customer/booking data | HomeAway: responsive records will include communications and content, implicating higher protection | Held: Parties stipulated (and court adopted) the subpoena does not compel content/electronic communications; SCA content protections not triggered |
| First and Fourth Amendment/privacy/association claims | City: disclosures target commercial transaction records, not intimate or expressive association; SCA addresses privacy concerns | HomeAway: compelled identification violates customers’ Fourth Amendment and associative First Amendment rights | Held: HomeAway lacks standing to assert customers’ associational rights here; arranging rentals is commercial, not intimate/expressive association; no Fourth Amendment violation given SCA compliance |
| Validity and scope under local/state law (overbreadth/relevance) | City: §6.4-1 authorizes tax collector to subpoena records “may have relevance” to tax enforcement; subpoena reasonably relevant to TOT/business registration inquiry | HomeAway: subpoena overbroad; TOT and registration may not apply; seeks irrelevant or privileged data; Union Pacific supports prepayment relief | Held: Tax collector acted within §6.4-1 authority; subpoena relevant to investigation; challenges to tax application are not ripe and Union Pacific does not bar investigatory subpoenas here |
Key Cases Cited
- Juror Number One v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 854 (discusses SCA purpose and limits on third-party disclosure)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir.) (recognizes Fourth Amendment protection for email content in that context)
- NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (supports organizational standing to assert members' associational rights in narrow circumstances)
- Arnett v. Dal Cielo, 14 Cal.4th 4 (states tax-collection investigative authority and breadth of administrative inquiry)
- Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 49 Cal.3d 138 (discusses prepayment judicial relief for demands for information when not reasonably relevant)