Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
9 Cal. App. 5th 623
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Machine Zone (MZ) sued a former employee (John Doe) for breach of a nondisclosure agreement, alleging Doe’s anonymous Glassdoor review disclosed confidential information about MZ’s then-unannounced platform technology.
- Doe’s June 2015 Glassdoor post criticized management, referenced a “platform team” (70–80 engineers), and quoted/paraphrased the CEO as saying the platform was for demos to attract VC investment.
- MZ subpoenaed Glassdoor for the poster’s identity; Glassdoor refused, invoking the anonymous speaker’s First Amendment rights and arguing MZ had not made a prima facie showing of actionable disclosure.
- The trial court granted MZ’s motion to compel; Glassdoor petitioned for writ relief.
- The Court of Appeal held Glassdoor had jus tertii standing to assert Doe’s anonymity and required plaintiffs seeking an anonymous speaker’s identity to (1) specify the exact statements alleged to be actionable and their asserted meanings, and (2) make a prima facie showing those statements disclosed confidential information under the NDA.
- Applying those rules, the court found MZ’s showing vague and insufficient: references to a “platform team” and alleged CEO remarks did not, on the record, demonstrate disclosure of confidential, nonpublic facts (and some information was already public). The court ordered the trial court’s disclosure order vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MZ) | Defendant's Argument (Glassdoor/Doe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert anonymous speaker’s First Amendment rights (jus tertii) | Glassdoor lacks personal right to assert Doe’s anonymity; only Doe may assert it | Glassdoor, as publisher, may assert users’ anonymity because its business depends on protecting anonymous contributors | Glassdoor has jus tertii standing; publishers can defend contributors’ anonymity where a close relationship and practical obstacles to the speaker’s defense exist |
| Standard for unmasking anonymous online speakers | No special specification; subpoenaing identity is routine if plaintiff alleges breach | Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the anonymous speech is actionable and must identify specific statements alleged to be wrongful | Plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of actionable speech under Krinsky and identify the exact statements and their alleged meanings |
| Specificity required about challenged statements and meanings | General descriptions suffice; substance can be provided to counsel off-record or under seal | Plaintiff must state on the record the precise statements and the meaning they conveyed so the court can evaluate the claim | Court requires on-record specification of the exact statements, the actionable meaning (innuendo/inducement), and any extrinsic facts needed to support that meaning |
| Whether Doe’s Glassdoor statements disclosed confidential information under the NDA | Statements about a platform team, its size, development stage, and CEO comments revealed MZ’s confidential RTPlatform details and investment plans | Statements were vague, possibly inaccurate, partially public, and false statements do not disclose confidential facts; MZ failed to prove the statements conveyed confidential, nonpublic information | MZ failed to make a prima facie showing that the review disclosed confidential information; disclosure order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (2008) (sets framework requiring notice and a prima facie showing of actionable speech to unmask anonymous speakers)
- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, 138 Cal. App. 4th 872 (2006) (discusses limits on third‑party standing where the challenger lacks a close relationship to the anonymous speaker)
- America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 261 Va. 350 (2001) (service provider may assert anonymous users’ rights; protecting users maintains business and anonymity expectations)
- Verizon Internet Servs., Inc. v. RIAA, 257 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003) (recognizes provider standing to protect subscribers’ anonymity and harm to business from disclosure)
- Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (App. Div. 2001) (requires plaintiff to specify exact statements alleged to be actionable before discovery to identify anonymous speakers)