Legal Process Policy

Verified ABA does not voluntarily disclose reviewer identity or other non-public information. Requests for such information must be accompanied by valid U.S. legal process — a properly issued subpoena, court order, or search warrant appropriate to the information sought. Civil subpoenas served on Verified ABA must comply with applicable rules of civil procedure in the jurisdiction of the underlying action.

A pre-suit demand letter, cease-and-desist, threat of litigation, or informal inquiry does not meet this bar. We will decline to produce reviewer-identifying information in response to such communications.

Where lawful and reasonable, Verified ABA will notify the affected reviewer before producing identifying information, through the protected email on file at signup. The purpose of notice is to afford the reviewer a meaningful opportunity to assert objections — including First Amendment and anti-SLAPP defenses — before identity is disclosed.

We may withhold notice only where: (a) a valid non-disclosure order issued by a court binds us; (b) the request is accompanied by a gag authority from law enforcement with lawful basis; or (c) we have a good-faith belief that notice would create a meaningful risk to personal safety.

Our notice commitment is a policy, not a contractual warranty. It expresses the Service's posture; it does not override any law or court order.

Anonymous speech about matters of public concern — including honest opinions about an employer's workplace — is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Courts have developed procedural frameworks to prevent litigants from using discovery to unmask anonymous reviewers without a substantive showing. Two leading authorities are:

• Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001), requiring plaintiffs to (i) make reasonable efforts to notify the reviewer, (ii) identify the allegedly actionable statements, (iii) make a prima facie showing on each element of the claim, and (iv) balance the reviewer's First Amendment rights against the need for disclosure.
• Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), requiring a plaintiff to survive a summary-judgment-level test before an anonymous reviewer's identity may be unmasked.

Many states have also enacted anti-SLAPP statutes that provide expedited review, fee-shifting, and early dismissal for speech-based claims. When we provide notice under Section 2, we will include a reference to these authorities so the reviewer knows the tools available.

Law enforcement requests accompanied by valid legal process (search warrant, subpoena, or court order, as applicable to the information sought) are handled under the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) and other applicable law. In an emergency involving risk of death or serious physical injury, we may produce information without process as permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(8) and (c)(4). Non-emergency law-enforcement requests that do not meet the applicable statutory standard are declined.

Valid legal process may be served on Verified ABA LLC at legal@verifiedaba.com. Acceptance of service by email is limited to properly issued process; unilateral email service is not a waiver of defenses.

Questions about this Policy: legal@verifiedaba.com. For reviewer-facing questions, see our Community Guidelines.