May, 20 2010, 10:55am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rachel Myers, ACLU national, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Jennifer Rudinger, ACLU of North Carolina, (919) 834-3466
Request for Amazon User Records Unconstitutional, Says ACLU
Group Will Join Lawsuit If North Carolina Department of Revenue Keeps Up Demand for Private Information
RALEIGH, NC
The American Civil Liberties Union and the
ACLU of North Carolina today sent a letter to North Carolina Secretary
of Revenue Kenneth Lay reiterating concern over a recent request by the
state Department of Revenue (NCDOR) for the private records of
Amazon.com customers. The letter informs Lay that the ACLU will take
legal action on behalf of North Carolina residents who are Amazon.com
customers if NCDOR persists in its demand for their constitutionally
protected private information. Specifically, the letter says the ACLU
and its clients will intervene in an existing lawsuit brought by
Amazon.com to stop NCDOR from collecting individually identifiable
information that could be linked to specific purchases made on
Amazon.com.
According to the lawsuit filed by
Amazon in the Western District of Washington in April, NCDOR issued a
request to Amazon for the purchase records since August 2003 of
customers with a North Carolina shipping address in order to impose
taxes on the purchases. Amazon has apparently already provided the NCDOR
with product codes that reveal the exact items purchased - including
books on the subjects of mental health, alcoholism and LGBT issues.
Amazon has withheld individually identifiable user information,
including names and addresses that could be linked back to the
individual purchases, but asserts that the NCDOR continues to insist
that such information be disclosed. In its letter today, the ACLU
asserted that such disclosure would violate the constitutional rights of
thousands of North Carolina consumers to read and purchase the lawful
materials of their choice, free from government intrusion.
The following can
be attributed to Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech,
Privacy and Technology Project:
"The Constitution guarantees
Americans the right to read and buy the lawful materials of their choice
without the government keeping tabs on the details of their purchases.
Amazon was right to stand up for the rights of its customers and to
refuse to turn over their personal information to the North Carolina
Department of Revenue."
The following can
be attributed to Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the ACLU of
North Carolina:
"The ACLU is not taking issue with
the Department's authority to collect taxes on the value of these
purchases, but there is no legitimate reason why government officials
need to know which North Carolina residents are reading what books or
purchasing which specific brands of products. We hope to be able to work
out a satisfactory resolution to this matter so that consumers in North
Carolina can rest assured that their privacy is protected."
The full text of the letter is below
and online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/aclu-letter-north-carolina-department-revenue-secretary-kenneth-l
May 20, 2010
Via Facsimile
Secretary Kenneth Lay
North Carolina Department of Revenue
501 N. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
re: Amazon.com LLC v. Lay,
2:10-cv-00664 (W.D. Wash.)
Dear Secretary Lay:
We are writing to follow up on our
fax dated April 21, 2010, regarding the Department of Revenue's request
for private customer records concerning the items that North Carolina
residents have received through Amazon.com. We write to inform you that
we have clients - North Carolina residents who are Amazon customers and
whose private records are at stake - who are gravely concerned about
government access to their purchasing records. The information
requested will reveal which North Carolina residents, including our
clients, have received which specific books, movies, and other
expressive and private items from Amazon. Our clients are prepared to
intervene in the lawsuit in the Western District of Washington to
protect their constitutional rights if necessary, but we write this
letter in the hope that the Department might agree to a solution that
would protect our clients' fundamental rights and avoid unnecessary
litigation.
According to Amazon's lawsuit, the
Department has issued information requests to Amazon that seek a broad
set of information regarding all sales to customers with a North
Carolina shipping address since August 2003. The Department has already
received detailed data from Amazon about these purchases, including the
specific product code for each purchase, which reveals the full
description of each purchased item. These product descriptions reveal
highly expressive and private information about consumer choices: for
example, whether a person has received a book on alcoholism or home
workshop weaponry, a movie like "Brokeback Mountain," or "sexual
wellness" items such as sex toys.
Amazon appears to have turned over
this detailed information already. We understand, based on press
reports, that the Department is now taking the position that it does not
want some of this information, such as the titles of books purchased,
and that its information request did not seek to obtain such
information. Amazon appears to dispute this account. We would
appreciate receiving a copy of the information requests, redacted if
necessary to protect taxpayer information, so that we could make an
independent determination.
In any event, the fact remains that
whatever the requests called for, the Department is now in possession of
this highly sensitive and personal information, and if the Department
persists in its demand that Amazon now additionally provide detailed
user information, including names and addresses, the constitutional
rights of our clients and tens of thousands of North Carolina consumers
will be violated.
Moreover, merely limiting the request
to the type of product purchased and not including the specific brand
or title of the product would still reveal information about North
Carolina residents -e.g., that they have purchased "condoms" or "yeast
infection kits" - that the State is not permitted to collect. To the
extent the Department believes it needs to learn what type of products
were purchased, please explain why that specific information is
necessary so that we can better understand the Department's position.
We want to reiterate that we are not
challenging the Department's authority to impose a tax for these
purchases or to conduct an audit. We are concerned, however, about the
apparent breadth of the information requests, which sweep up
constitutionally protected information that the Department does not need
to determine tax liability. It is clearly established law that the
Constitution forbids the government from collecting such information.
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 246 F.R.D. 570,
572-73 (W.D. Wis. 2007); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks &
Afterwords, Inc., Nos. 98-MC-135-NHJ, 98-MC-138-NHJ, 26 Med. L. Rptr.
1599, 1600 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 1998); Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of
Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1052 (Colo. 2002).
As one court has already ruled in
upholding the constitutional rights of Amazon customers against
government intrusion into their expressive choices: "[I]f word were to
spread over the Net-and it would-that the [government] had demanded and
received Amazon's list of customers and their personal purchases, the
chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across
America." In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 246 F.R.D. at 573.
To ensure that our clients' and North
Carolina consumers' constitutional rights are not violated, and to
minimize the clear chilling effect from the Department's information
requests, we respectfully ask that the Department:
- Destroy the records that it
has already received from Amazon that reveal what products were
purchased by North Carolina customers; - Make a public statement
acknowledging that it does not need records from Amazon or any other
entity that reveal the specific products or the type of products that
were purchased by each customer; - Agree to take all necessary
steps to change its existing policy and practice and to institute a new
policy and practice to ensure that the Department does not issue
overbroad information requests in the future to entities such as Amazon
that call for the disclosure of constitutionally protected customer
information, such as what products were purchased by each customer.
We have reason to believe that the
Department has issued similar information requests to entities other
than Amazon and that the Department has received similar customer
information which is constitutionally protected in response. Please
confirm whether that is correct. That the requests to Amazon are not
the only such requests that have been made makes it all the more
imperative that the Department cease issuing such overbroad requests
that are sweeping in constitutionally protected information.
Please let us know how the Department
wishes to proceed. If we do not hear back from you by May 28, 2010,
our clients will be forced to intervene in this lawsuit to protect their
rights. I will be out of the office for much of this week and all of
the week of May 24, 2010, so please contact Aden Fine at (212) 549-2693
to discuss this matter further. We look forward to hearing from you
shortly.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Rudinger
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of
North Carolina
P.O. Box 28004
Raleigh, NC 27611
Aden Fine
Mariko Hirose
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular