⚖️ US Privacy Law Changes

In partnership with

Judicial Scrutiny of Digital Dragnets in Chatrie v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the landmark case of Chatrie v. United States, a legal battle that centers on the constitutionality of "geofence" warrants. These investigative tools allow law enforcement to compel technology companies like Google to provide location data for every device within a specific geographic area during a set timeframe. In this specific instance, Virginia investigators used a geofence warrant to identify Okello Chatrie as a suspect in a 2019 bank robbery by analyzing all devices within a 150-meter radius of the crime scene. While the lower courts acknowledged that the warrant was overly broad, they allowed the evidence under the "good faith" exception, leaving the Supreme Court to decide whether these digital dragnets violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case essentially tests whether the sheer volume of data collected on innocent bystanders makes such warrants inherently unconstitutional or if they are simply a modern evolution of traditional investigative techniques.

Reassessing Data Liability and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

For startup founders, the Chatrie case represents a critical shift in how "anonymized" location data is viewed under the law, moving it from a simple business record to a protected private interest. During the arguments, several justices expressed concern that geofence warrants allow the government to "search first and develop suspicion later," a reversal of traditional probable cause requirements. If the Court rules that users maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy even when they "opt-in" to location tracking, any startup that stores centralized logs of user movements could find its databases subject to new, much higher legal hurdles for government access. Founders should recognize that holding large banks of precise location data is increasingly becoming a legal liability rather than a purely commercial asset, as the cost of complying with—or challenging—these complex, multi-stage warrants can be significant. The transition toward a more "particularized" legal standard means that the old defence of the "Third-Party Doctrine," which suggested that shared data loses constitutional protection, is rapidly eroding in the face of modern geolocation precision.

Engineering for Privacy to Mitigate Future Legal Risks

To safeguard your company against the fallout of a potential narrowing of search warrant laws, founders should consider shifting away from server-side location storage in favour of on-device processing. Google’s 2024 move to store Location History exclusively on user devices effectively shielded the company from geofence warrants, and this "Privacy by Design" approach is becoming the gold standard for risk mitigation. In practice, you should audit your current data retention policies to ensure you are not storing more granular location history than is strictly necessary for your product’s functionality, as "zombie data" remains a prime target for law-enforcement dragnets. By implementing end-to-end encryption or decentralizing data storage, you can ensure that your platform is technically unable to comply with overbroad geofence requests, thereby protecting your users’ civil liberties and reducing your own exposure to high-stakes litigation. Founders who proactively adopt these privacy-first architectures will be better positioned to navigate the 2026 regulatory environment, in which the Supreme Court is increasingly hesitant to allow "digital dragnets" to ensnare innocent users.

In addition to our newsletter we offer 60+ free legal templates for companies in the UK, Canada and the US. These include employment contracts, investment agreements and more