Calling the law "Arcane" doesn't change the fact it's federal law (Arcane is hyperbole anyway). You don't get to not follow laws just because they are a little

Calling the law "Arcane" doesn't change the fact it's federal law (Arcane is hyperbole anyway). You don't get to not follow laws just because they are a little old. Also you can call it a "hardline interpretation", but that probably means it's following the text. Companies are supposed to take a "traditional" interpretation anyway legally, although typically this is referred to as "precedent"! If we remove the words "Hardline", "Interpretation", "Traditional" and "Arcane" which are all hyperbole, the statement actually would read "GitHub and California courts are sticking by a 1986 privacy law" - which of course they would, they are legally required to. > "Arguably, GitHub’s interpretation of the SCA infringes on a defendant’s rights as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court itself". This is just saying that arguably by not breaking one law, they were possibly breaking another law - and in this case the courts need to move.