First Pinterest Transparency Report from 2013 More useful information on http://www.webdesignagency-london.co.uk/

1. Pinterest, like other companies (including banks, e-mail providers and
phone companies, for example) storing user/ customer information, is
required by law to respond to disclosure requests for such information by
courts, law enforcement agencies, and so on.
Believing that it is important for users to be aware of such requests,
Pinterest published their first transparency report at the beginning of
March 2014 and hopes to continue publishing similar reports on a six-
monthly basis.
THE REPORT
Covering the six-month period from July 2013 to December 2013, the
report reveals that a total of 12 requests from US state and local
authorities and one civil request for disclosure of user information on 13
accounts were made during this period.
The Pinterest disclosure policy means users are notified of such requests
being made, unless applicable statutes or protective orders prohibit the
company from doing so. During the reported period, Pinterest was
prohibited from informing users about disclosure requests by protective
orders in three out of 12 cases.
One of the disclosure requests was denied. This can happen if a request is
considered to be of an in some way defective or objectionable content,
nature of scope. It should, however, be noted that in the vast majority of
cases, requests are of a fairly routine, straightforward nature.
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2013
The requests made during this quarter related to seven accounts and
included four warrants and three subpoenas, which included one federal,
two court and one grand jury request.
Protective orders prohibiting users being notified were issued for one of
the subpoenas and two warrants. Compliance with the federal request by
full or partial production of information was 100%, while there was an
83% compliance with state/ local requests.
OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2013
During this period, disclosure of information requests concerning five
accounts were made. The US state/ local authority and civil requests
consisted of three warrants and two subpoenas (including one grand jury
and one court order).
No protective orders were issued, and compliance with all requests (full or
partial production of user information) was 100%.