On Wednesday, a federal judge in Seattle allowed Microsoft’s lawsuit against the government to go forward. US District Judge James Robart ruled that the company does, in fact, have standing to sue the Department of Justice on behalf of its customers.

Microsoft's case has drawn support from a number of major tech companies, including Apple, Twitter, Google, and Snapchat, among others.

The lawsuit first began nearly a year ago. Microsoft sued, arguing that when the government presents it with legal demands for user data held in online storage, those court orders often come with a gag order that has no end date. Because Microsoft is effectively forbidden from alerting its customers, even well after the fact, that such a data handover took place, the company alleged that its customers' First and Fourth Amendment rights are consistently violated.

In earlier court filings, Microsoft argued that in data or document handover situations prior to cloud storage, the "government had to give notice when it sought private information and communications, except in the rarest of circumstances." Effectively, the company claimed, this means the government expanded its ability to conduct "secret investigations."

The government asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that the company lacked standing since Microsoft had not suffered any "concrete injury" by not being allowed to disclose further to its customers. Under current law, the DOJ argues, Microsoft can’t bring a "Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of others."

But in a Wednesday ruling, Judge Robart found largely in Microsoft’s favor.

"In at least some circumstances, however, the Government’s interest in keeping investigations secret dissipates after an investigation concludes and at that point, First Amendment rights may outweigh the Government interest in secrecy," he wrote.

The judge only allowed the Fourth Amendment question to be dropped, citing 9th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, but he left the door open for the issue to be brought back on appeal if needed.

Robart continued:

Some of Microsoft’s customers will be practically unable to vindicate their own Fourth Amendment rights. … This conundrum, however, is not unique to this case; it is also true of the victim of an unreasonable search in a stranger’s home. See Alderman, 394 U.S. at 134. The source of the court’s conclusion is thus the product of established and binding precedent, which precludes the court from allowing Microsoft to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights that belong to its customers. This court cannot faithfully reconcile the broad language of those cases and Microsoft’s theory of Fourth Amendment standing on the facts of this case; that task is more properly left to higher courts.

In a statement sent to Ars, Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, said, "We’re pleased this ruling enables our case to move forward toward a reasonable solution that works for law enforcement and ensures secrecy is used only when necessary."

In a short e-mail, DOJ spokesman Peter Carr told Ars, "We are reviewing the opinion and will decline to comment further at this time."