Written by: Haim Ravia, Dotan Hammer
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the child pornography conviction of Adam Blocker, ruling that a user’s agreement to a tech company’s Terms of Service (ToS) constitutes valid consent for a digital search. The decision, issued on May 5, 2026, reinforces the legal power of consumer contracts in privacy disputes, even when they facilitate criminal investigations.
The case began in 2018 when Dropbox identified illegal material in files Blocker was sharing with third parties. Dropbox notified the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and provided the files, which led to an FBI warrant and Blocker’s subsequent 120-month prison sentence. Blocker appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that Dropbox’s collaboration with NCMEC turned the private company into a “government agent,” making the initial warrantless search unconstitutional.
Circuit Judge Easterbrook, writing for the panel, bypassed the “government agent” debate by focusing on voluntary consent. Upon creating his account, Blocker assented to terms stating Dropbox “may examine the data” to prevent illegal use and “may disclose” information to third parties to comply with legal processes or protect safety. The court found this language unambiguously permitted the company to scan and reveal the content.
While the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits have suggested that optional language (stating a company “may” search rather than “will” search) is insufficient to waive privacy expectations, the Seventh Circuit disagreed. Following its own precedent in United States v. Adkinson, the court maintained that a “clear grant of permission” remains valid consent regardless of whether the search is mandatory or infrequent.
The court concluded that unless a contract clause is unconscionable, users who accept such terms essentially authorize the provider to act as it sees fit within that scope.
Click here to read the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States of America v. Blocker.
