This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
You have to be a subscriber to view this page.

U.S. Supreme Court,
California Supreme Court

Jul. 26, 2021

Privacy decisions illustrate divergent approaches to statutory interpretation

Earlier this year, two opinions interpreting privacy rights statutes issued within hours of each other, one from the U.S. Supreme Court, one from the California Supreme Court.

Edward D. Totino

Partner
Baker McKenzie

Cornell University; Ithaca NY

See more...

Ben Turner

Of Counsel
Baker McKenzie

See more...

Earlier this year, two opinions interpreting privacy rights statutes issued within hours of each other. One, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, interpreted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The other, decided by the California Supreme Court, interpreted Section 632.7 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Sections 630, et seq. An examination of how the two courts interpreted the statutes at issue illustrates their diverg...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up