Legal Bytes : Advertising & Media Lawyer & Attorney : Reed Smith Law Firm : Marketing & Intellectual Property : Legal Bytes Law Blog

Last month we promised to provide you with a bit more detail regarding each of the self-regulatory principles that form the basis of the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles, announced by the Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, in concert with the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The principles are intended to provide a framework for industry participants to adopt, implement and adhere to standards of conduct applicable to their online behavioral advertising practices. Seven basic principles are contained in the report, and Legal Bytes is briefly summarizing each one, although we urge you to read the full report. 

We previously reported on the Education and Transparency principles; those links in the outline below will take you to the summaries, or you can read the overview posted when we reported on the initial release of the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles.

For reference, here are the seven enumerated principles:

• Education
• Transparency
• Consumer Control
• Data Security
• Material Changes
• Sensitive Data
• Accountability

Today, Keri S. Bruce highlights the Consumer Control principle that relates to the practice recommended by the report of providing consumers with additional control over whether data is collected about them and whether it is shared with others. The principle applies to third parties that collect or use behavioral advertising data and the websites from which the data is collected. The principle also applies to “service providers” (i.e., parties that provide Internet access services, toolbars, Internet browsers or comparable services, and who are engaged in online behavioral advertising). Through notices that are described under the Transparency principle, with respect to third parties and websites, consumers should be able to control the use and collection of their personally identifiable information by opting-out of having data collected or shared with non-affiliate websites. With respect to service providers, because they potentially can, by the nature of the services they provide, gain access to all or substantially all online behavioral data of a particular user when that user is online with or through the service provider, the Consumer Control principle requires industry participants to follow practices that require consumers to opt-in to data collection for online behavioral advertising purposes by the service provider. Further, even after consent is given, service providers must provide a means for the consumer to withdraw her or his consent. 

Thanks to Keri S. Bruce for her analysis. For further information, you can also call me or the Reed Smith attorney you regularly work with. Stay tuned for summaries of the remaining principles.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (4)
• Share Link

Last month, Legal Bytes reported to you that the Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, in concert with the Council of Better Business Bureaus, released its Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles. As reported, the major participants in the online advertising industry have proposed to apply these principles to their practices related to online behavioral advertising: “the collection of data from a particular computer or device regarding Web viewing behaviors over time and across non-Affiliate Web sites for the purpose of using such data to predict user preferences or interests to deliver advertising to that computer or device based on the preferences or interests inferred from such Web viewing behaviors.” 

We promised to provide you with a bit more detail regarding each of these principles. We previously reported on Education, and today we summarize Transparency. As we go through each one, we’ll use the outline below to enable you to link to all the prior principles covered in Legal Bytes, while highlighting the one covered today. The seven enumerated principles are:

• Education
• Transparency
• Consumer Control
• Data Security
• Material Changes
• Sensitive Data
• Accountability

The Transparency principle seeks clear and accessible consumer disclosures regarding the type of data collected and how the data will be used to conduct behavioral advertising. Because behavioral advertising is often conducted by third-party advertising networks that lease space on a website, the principle applies to both third-party entities collecting and/or using the data, and the websites from which such data is being collected. Under this principle, these parties would provide “enhanced notice” on the page where data is collected through links embedded in or around advertisements, or on the web page itself. Customers will have the ability to read these notices and use the information to enable themselves to take control over the use of their personal information, choosing whether they would like to permit their information to be used for online behavioral advertising purposes.

Thanks to Amy S. Mushahwar for her analysis. Stay tuned for summaries of each of the remaining principles.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (4)
• Share Link

A few months ago, Legal Bytes noted the progress of the Credit Card Act of 2009 (the “Act”), and when it was signed into law, we updated that blog post with a note about the inclusion, for the first time in federal law, of coverage of gift cards.

Today, some of the credit card protections the Act affords consumers go into effect. First, credit card bills must be mailed to the consumer at least 21 days before payment is due. Second, significant changes to the rates or fees that apply to credit cards can’t be implemented unless consumers are given at least 45 days’ notice. In both cases, this represents an elongation of the prior regulations (14 days and 15 days, respectively). 

Provisions of the Act also in effect now prohibit credit card issuers from raising their fees and interest rates without any notice if a credit card account holder fails to make a payment on time or goes over their credit limit. In most cases, such a charge would have required approval from the issuing institution anyway.

Most of the other significant provisions of the Act come into effect next February (e.g., restrictions on increases in interest rates for existing credit card balances), and by July 2010, the Federal Reserve Board is to have crafted and approved new rules covering consumer disclosures (i.e., advertising, application forms, etc.).

If you need to know more about compliance and credit cards—offline or online—contact me (Joseph I. Rosenbaum) or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We are happy to help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, New York State Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ordered Google to turn over account information about an anonymous blogger to model Liskula Cohen in order to enable her to pursue a claim of defamation. The blogger had used Google’s blogging service to create a blog entitled “Skanks in NYC,” and had posted pictures and references to the model that were anything but flattering, and which, she claimed, lost potential opportunities for her. When Ms. Cohen originally sought to find out who had posted the content, predictably Google resisted, maintaining that its privacy policy does not permit the disclosure of the blogger’s account information.

To put this in perspective, the protection of free speech—especially anonymous speech—is a concept in American jurisprudence and history that traces its roots to Thomas Payne’s pamphlet, Common Sense. First published in 1776, it anonymously challenged the authority of Great Britain in the New World and is widely regarded as the first work to openly ask for independence for the Colonies from Britain.

Since then, state courts have varied on just how wide those rights go and for what purposes protection is appropriate. Although I am hardly a First Amendment lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, the legal issue still seems simple. If the speaker—anonymous or not—is expressing ideas or an opinion or belief, he or she is more likely to enjoy protection. While there are limitations on freedom of expression (e.g., yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), political expression has typically enjoyed greater protection than “commercial” speech—one being fundamental to a society’s encouragement of the free flow of ideas, the other designed to promote a product, service or brand in a free market economy. On the other side of the spectrum and generally not protected, would be public expressions that are clearly and solely intended to hurt someone, where actual harm can be shown from intentional or malicious public expression or, as was determined by the New York court here, where an illegal act was or was likely to have been committed—in this case, defamation.

While it is difficult to pinpoint a single factor that will always favor protection, anonymity is a strong legal shield U.S. jurisprudence holds dear to protect individuals from the potential swords of those in power, or from anyone who might seek to stifle dissent or ideas that might be unpopular. For example, in 2005, a blogger who ranted against a politician, accusing him of “obvious mental deterioration,” was ultimately protected by the Delaware Supreme Court expressing concern over the potential “chilling effect” on anonymous speech. The blogger in this case was referring to a politician, and the court ruled that in order to justify revealing the identity of an anonymous blogger, the plaintiff must provide evidence sufficient to all the elements of the claim if the case were to go to trial. Because the court concluded no reasonable person would believe the blogger’s statements to be factual, no action for defamation could be sustained, and the court dismissed the case. You can read the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in full right here, but clearly for bloggers, this represented a significant landmark and affirmation of the substantial protection afforded anonymous posting.

In a subsequent 2008 case, a Maryland Court of Appeals decision (Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Zebulon J. Brodie) similarly concluded that anonymous posts should be protected, and set out an approach first detailed in a New Jersey case (Dendrite Int'l, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3) describing the steps judges should take in deciding whether to compel disclosure of anonymous online speakers in cases that come along in the future.

Unlike the previous cases, and potentially distinguishing this case, is the fact that the blogger here targeted Ms. Cohen intentionally, exclusively, and individually; and while the defendant argued the postings were just “trash talk” and only opinion, Judge Madden noted that if Ms. Cohen could prove the blogger’s statements were factually inaccurate, it would refute the argument that the posts were merely opinion and would support a legal claim of defamation.

As we have previously noted in Legal Bytes in articles describing the FTC’s efforts to regulate the blogosphere, and in presentations we have made, it is clear that online speech is coming under increased scrutiny, and that regulators and courts appear to nibbling away at the virtually complete immunity anonymous bloggers once seemed to enjoy, seeking to define the contours of what is or is not permissible conduct on the web. Does anyone remember the term “netiquette”?

For more information, or for assistance with issues like these or any social media, online, digital content, gaming or matters that meet at the crossroads of advertising, technology & media, look up Joseph I. Rosenbaum, send me an email, or contact the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We are happy to help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Did you ever have the experience of someone walking up to you and telling you that you look just like someone . . ? Most of us at one point or another have had that experience. Well, Russell Christoff was in a store in 2002, when someone came up to him and said he thought he looked just like an image he had seen on a jar of coffee. Perhaps he laughed at that moment, but about a month later, when Mr. Christoff actually saw the jar of Taster’s Choice instant coffee on a shelf – with his recognizable image on the label – he bought the jar of coffee, stopped laughing, and called his agent.

It seems Mr. Christoff, a former model, had posed for a photo shoot for Nestlé (owner of the Taster’s Choice brand) back in 1986 and was paid $250, with the understanding that if the company used his likeness in marketing, he would receive $2,000 in compensation. Thus begins the tale and trail of a legal battle that continues to this day. Mr. Christoff filed suit in 2003 alleging violation by Nestlé of his right of publicity. (California Civil Code § 3344 bars, among other things, unauthorized use of a person's image for commercial purposes.) The statute allows for damages, punitive damages, the award of attorneys’ fees AND (unlike many other state statutes protecting rights of publicity), profits attributable to the unauthorized use.

As the action unfolded, Mr. Christoff discovered Nestlé’s had begun using his image in 1986. Not only had he never been paid the $2,000, but there was more as well. Much more. It appears that from 1997 to 2003, Nestlé had also used his image on eight different varieties of Taster’s Choice brand labels in 18 different countries, including in Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Mexico, South Korea and the United States. At the trial, a jury concluded that Mr. Christoff should have been paid $330,000 for the use of his likeness and was entitled to damages of more than $15 million! California’s right of publicity statute, as it relates to proof of a defendant’s profits, states that the plaintiff needs to “present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to such use,” (emphasis supplied) while the defendant must prove “deductible expenses.”

In this case, even though the jury determined that only 5 percent of the sales of Taster's Choice over the period of 1997 – 2006 were attributable to the use of the image, a profitable product and extended use made the jury award substantial, to say the least. Now you would think that the jury verdict in 2005 might have put an end to it, but predictably, Nestlé appealed and the saga continues.

Based on Nestlé’s appeal, the appellate court reversed the jury’s verdict based on the fact that Mr. Christoff had not brought his lawsuit before the statute of limitations had expired; but just this past Monday (Aug. 17), the California Supreme Court ordered the case back down to the trial court to take another look. Why, you may ask? Because the Supreme Court wants the trial court to answer the following question: What’s the correct way to calculate the statute of limitations – start date/end date – in lawsuits involving rights of publicity and product labeling?

Since Mr. Christoff brought his lawsuit six years after Nestlé USA, Inc. began using his image (but less than a year after he discovered it), the original trial court instructed the jury to use a two-year statute of limitation, but to use the point at which Mr. Christoff knew, should have known, or could have reasonably suspected his image was being used on the label, as the starting point for calculating when the statute of limitation would bar his lawsuit. It seems the trial court determined that unlike offensive or defamatory remarks that would not be considered “published” over and over again, simply because they were repeated in 100,000 copies of the same book, the “Single Publication Rule” (Uniform Single Publication Act as codified in Civil Code section 3425.3) did not apply to cases involving the use of someone’s likeness or image. So here’s how the wrinkle unfolds . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, Legal Bytes reported to you that the Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, in concert with the Council of Better Business Bureaus, released its Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles. As reported, the major participants in the online advertising industry have proposed to apply these principles to their practices related to online behavioral advertising: “the collection of data from a particular computer or device regarding Web viewing behaviors over time and across non-Affiliate Web sites for the purpose of using such data to predict user preferences or interests to deliver advertising to that computer or device based on the preferences or interests inferred from such Web viewing behaviors.” 

Since we promised to provide you with a bit more detail regarding each of these principles, which are listed below, here is our first installment in fulfilling that commitment. The seven enumerated principles are:

• Education
• Transparency
• Consumer Control
• Data Security
• Material Changes
• Sensitive Data
• Accountability

The Education principle requires everyone in the online behavioral environment to participate in meaningful efforts to educate consumers and businesses about behavioral advertising, the purpose of the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles, and the potential benefits and consumer choices that are available when these principles are followed, and to explain to consumers the means and implications of exercising their rights and the choices they may have. While the specifics of all of the proposed educational outreach are yet to be established within the framework of the industry groups that have formulated these principles, the one thing that was agreed on as a tangible, quantitative objective is that through industry-developed website(s) and a major online education campaign, the initial educational outreach would be developed to achieve at least 500,000,000 (yes, that’s five hundred million) impressions over the next 18 months. Thanks to Keri Bruce for her input. Stay tuned for highlights of the six other principles.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, Legal Bytes posted Online Gaming Laws Survey – Free (Yes, You Read Correctly), which also included a link that would allow readers to download a copy of a chart summarizing the U.S. laws that apply to online gaming (Survey of U.S. Federal and State Gaming Laws & Regulations). In that posting, I asked "Why would a law firm be giving away such valuable research for free online, on the web, for everyone to see?" The answer, my friend, is . . . (you were expecting a Bob Dylan line, weren’t you) . . .

The answer is simple. We know that many lawyers and firms can do research! While it may come as a shock to some, it comes as no surprise to us that Reed Smith may not be the only, or even the first, law firm that has done 50-state surveys of various laws and regulations. However—and it’s a big HOWEVER—Legal Bytes may be among the few lawyer-driven blogs that actually gives research away to any visitor to our blog—for nothing. You don’t even have to be a client, but you may want to be. It’s free. Yours for the taking.

It’s free because in this age of information and social media, we believe it’s not the research that distinguishes lawyers or law firms. Oh, of course we must do research and, of course, we need to be good at it. We are. But clients want lawyers who can wisely and effectively apply and use the research; lawyers who know how to use years of hands-on experience gained from working with clients, and apply it to real-world, real-life and real-time situations. We give research away because our sustainable competitive advantage is based on relationships, and the depth and wealth of experience that enables us to bring value to clients when they call.

So, just as with online gaming, we turn today to gift cards and gift certificates, online and offline, and the wealth of experience our Advertising Technology & Media law group has developed and applies regularly for clients. The experience that lets us give valuable research away for free. So enough philosophy, show us the money.

In connection with the work we do for many clients, we have found it useful to develop and maintain a database, which we update periodically, relating to Gift Cards, payment instruments that are increasingly blurred with prepaid debit cards, stored value cards, smart or chip-cards, reward cards, discount certificates, and traditional credit, charge and debit cards. If you are in this market, you already know there are regulations that require certain disclosures, certain restrictions on expiration dates and on the imposition of inactivity fees, as well as escheat and abandoned property laws that may apply on a state-by-state basis. You also know that for the first time, the Credit Card Act of 2009 will impose federal legislative and regulatory requirements on gift cards.

So with pleasure to all of our current (and future) Legal Bytes readers and subscribers, here is a link to our publicly available chart covering Federal and State Gift Card Laws. The chart provides a handy citation and reference tool for the various gift card and gift certificate laws in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia, and includes a description of the newly enacted Credit Card Act of 2009, which provides certain consumer protections applicable to gift cards under U.S. federal law.

Now the disclaimers. First, no chart can be as comprehensive or as up-to-date or clear as actually reading and knowing the statutes and regulations themselves. It is a guide, not an authority, and you should not rely on it for anything other than as a roadmap to proper and thorough legal counsel based on the source material itself. That said, let’s not minimize its value either: it represents the distillation of years, and of hours of work and effort. A special thanks to Keri Bruce and Stacy Marcus for helping to consolidate and refine it so that it is ready for prime time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It was 1998 and identity theft had not yet hit the radar screens as heavily as it would during the course of the next decade. Who could predict? So when I received a call from Albert J. Marcella, Jr. Professor of Management in the School of Business and Technology, Department of Management, at Webster University in St. Louis, who said he was putting together an "audit oriented" publication for The Institute of Internal Auditors to guide professionals who were becoming increasingly concerned about online identity theft, I naturally wondered what I could contribute to that effort.

So we spent a great deal of time collaborating about what we knew, speculated about what we did not know, and tried to put the work in context—specifically, guidance for corporate auditors and security management professionals on what they needed to know as sensitive, personally identifiable information migrated online. The result, of which my contribution played only a small part, was a book entitled www.STOPTHIEF.net, Protecting Your Identity on the Web, published in November 1999 by The Institute of Internal Auditors.

Identity theft, not a brand new crime even then, had a new face in our online, digital interconnected world. And, it was growing and pervasive, and its implications—if for no other reason than the sheer magnitude of the potential risks and the speed at which they would materialize on or through the Internet—were unprecedented and were becoming global.

I now know what I could not have known then—that more than 40 states have passed identity theft statutes and that the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse website, which takes pride in cataloging such things, estimates that as of a day or two ago, 263,247,398 records containing sensitive personal information were involved in security breaches in the United States since January 2005—six years after the publication became available.

To appreciate the foresight and to learn about those audit guidelines and benchmarks, you have to buy the book. But to read my personal piece of that collaborative effort—an end-piece summary of the legal implications entitled "Technology, the Internet and Cyberspace: Challenges to National and International Privacy", you just have to read Legal Bytes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gaming is a fast-growing segment of the online community—remarkable since people have actually been saying that since 1994! Well online gaming and gambling may become more difficult (and more expensive) in places like Italy, if the Italian Chamber of Deputies has its way. New legislation ratifying and amending existing Italian law authorizes the State Monopolies Authority (Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato (AAMS)) to promulgate implementing regulations—which are likely to be issued in early 2010 (although late 2009 is a possibility). Currently, Italy licenses online poker tournament games and fixed-odds sports betting, but online gambling in Italy is limited to Italian gamblers on internal, not international networks.

So what does the new law provide? Although absent the actual regulations it is impossible to predict with certainty, there does appear to be both good news and bad news.

First the good news. The law authorizes the introduction of online cash games—both fixed draws and card games—and permits the implementation of new online lotteries of various types and modes of play. Consequently, online games involving cash are likely to become legal and be introduced in Italy. 

Now the bad news. The tax that will be imposed on these new games is 20 percent of the total (essentially a gross profits tax). This represents an increase above the current 4.5 percent tax on “gross gaming revenues” that applies to sports betting in Italy. In cash online games, unlike tournament poker (in which a tax is imposed as a percentage of gross gaming revenue), the network operator generally takes a “rake” from each game. Thus, using a gross profits tax will allow the operator to set the rake more rationally in the marketplace, but will also result in more tax revenue.

So bottom line, while these new provisions are likely to stimulate new online gaming, the AAMS retains very broad authority to define the basis upon which operators can customize the wagering products and services being offered. Because the AAMS still retains the right to approve each betting product, one wonders if that will not limit both innovation and competition in the online gaming marketplace. That said, gaming and gaming revenues continue to increase and tax revenue will likely follow. We’ll see if the new regulations provide additional opportunities, but as they said in ancient Rome: Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

Need to understand more about online gaming, or online gambling, or both? Need help? In Italy? In the United States? Anywhere? Need references? In Italy? In the United States? Anywhere? Contact me at jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com, check out my bio at Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or contact the Reed Smith lawyer you normally work with. We are happy to help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In case you haven’t checked in with Legal Bytes lately, you might want to know that we have been busy posting many of the articles that have appeared in our back issues—prior to our conversion to a blog format. Actually, thanks go to outstanding marketing support from Rebecca Blaw, who has done much of the archive posting over the past few months, along with the trusty support of Erin Evans.  Even those issues and articles that aren’t yet fully digitized and posted by category and title on Legal Bytes are still available as .PDF files here.

Check it out. You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you might just get what you need!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When Merck was busy battling lawsuits emanating from the pain medication Vioxx, the Wall Street Journal, among other news organizations that were reporting on the proceedings, also reported on the practice of "ghostwriting," alleging that five out of the six authors of a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association were paid consultants to Vioxx lawyers! An editorial accompanying the studies in JAMA opined that manipulation of publications in the promotion of drugs by paid ghostwriters might not be such an uncommon occurrence. The Washington Post even went so far as to report that the JAMA studies essentially “accuse” the drug manufacturer of “scientific fraud.” 

Merck responded to the Wall Street Journal article expressing disappointment at reports that trial lawyers might have made payments to authors whose work found their way into medical journals. While a majority, if not all, of the Vioxx cases have been settled, inquiries into the practice of ghostwriting—payments by pharmaceutical manufacturers for articles frequently extolling the virtues of one drug or another and appearing in medical journals—seems to be a continuing, and problematic, means of promoting pharmaceuticals.

As they say, timing is often everything. A few weeks ago, I had prepared a presentation for an international gathering of lawyers at Limerick University in Ireland, describing the use of testimonials and endorsements in advertising. You can read my previous post and obtain a .PDF copy of the presentation. In briefing the assembled professionals—mainly from the United States and Europe—my presentation and their interest focused heavily on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed updates and revisions to its Guides that were last revised in 1980.

One of the items clearly on the FTC’s agenda is DISCLOSURE—specifically, disclosure of material connections between those who promote and endorse products and services, and the advertisers and companies that create, manufacture, distribute and sell these products and services. Indeed, the FTC is considering extending liability to endorsers themselves who promote goods and services, if the claims being made are found to be false, deceptive, or misleading, or if they represent unfair competition. While much of the discussion surrounding these revisions has focused heavily on new social media and digital distribution—buzz, viral and word-of-mouth marketing, social networks, bloggers, vloggers, sploggers and virtual worlds—and both traditional and revised Guides (as well as specific advertising guidelines for regulated pharmaceuticals), all focus on the potential for misleading consumers as to the credibility of the speaker or writer, where a material connection to the sponsor is not clearly disclosed. Whether a physician who reads an article that is authored by a paid ghostwriter and that appears in a medical journal, would be considered a "consumer" under these circumstances; or whether an independently peer-reviewed article would be considered advertising or promotional activity, are separate questions. But clearly these are topics that have created "buzz."

Well, here we go again. Just recently, the ABAjournal.com reported that Wyeth paid ghostwriters for articles published in medical journals—in this case promoting certain replacement hormone therapy in menopausal women. You can read the full article here. While proponents (or should we say "defenders") of payments made to authors assert that if the medical professional is qualified; if the content is subject to rigorous peer-review by independent experts; and if the authors retain complete editorial control over the content and the views that are expressed; it should not be a problem and should be considered perfectly fine.

Assuming, as both the pharmaceutical companies and the individual authors assert, that the content of these articles is scientifically accurate, many questions arise. For example, is disclosure even necessary under these circumstances? Could failure to disclose these payments be construed as deceptive or misleading—always, or only under specific circumstances, and if so, what circumstances? What criteria will be used to determine if a payment is "material," and if disclosing (or not disclosing) that fact that would affect the reader’s perception of the credibility or impartiality of the authors? Is this even a "consumer" regulatory issue or does this belong to the FDA or another regulatory body relevant to the medical profession, since this isn’t really "consumer" advertising? These are questions perhaps that that FTC and David C. Vladeck, its new Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, may well decide to focus upon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times today has published some of the views of David C. Vladeck, the new head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, regarding the FTC’s role in protecting consumer privacy. 

By way of background, in announcing Mr. Vladeck’s appointment April 14, 2009, the FTC noted that “David C. Vladeck, who will serve as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, has been a Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching federal courts, government processes, civil procedure, and First Amendment litigation. He co-directed the Center’s Institute for Public Representation, a clinical law program for civil rights, civil liberties, First Amendment, open government, and regulatory litigation. Vladeck previously spent almost 30 years with Public Citizen Litigation Group, including 10 years as Director.”

The FTC has been, and likely will continue to be, among the most aggressive federal agencies in the U.S. privacy arena. Traditionally, the FTC had prosecuted companies for how they collect and use consumer information, if consumers had been deceived, or if consumers had suffered economic harm. Although you can read The New York Times article in full, Mr. Vladeck has proposed adding a new thrust to the future of FTC privacy enforcement. He is reported to have suggested that if companies collect too much information from a consumer, that, in itself, is a harm to the inherent privacy of individuals AND (if his views turn out to be prophetic) is prosecutable, no matter how conspicuously or completely the nature and extent of information collection is disclosed to the consumer. This concept of damage to the "dignity" of the consumer goes well beyond the traditional U.S. privacy principles that have typically compensated consumers only when economic harm or damage has occurred, or when there are statutory penalties for violations of law or regulation.  

If Mr. Vladeck’s views transform into regulatory policy and enforcement activity, this highly subjective and vague standard (How much is too much? Why shouldn’t proper disclosure and choice be sufficient?) could have a huge impact on data collection, could lead to a huge flurry of litigation, and would arguably create a "big chill" for all—including consumers. Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Save the Date. Association of National Advertisers 5^th Annual Advertising Law Conference is scheduled for March 17-18, 2010, to be held at the Park Hyatt in Washington, D.C., and coincides with the 100^th Anniversary of the ANA. Specifics of the agenda and confirmed speakers are yet to be announced, but rest assured that the ANA will continue to ramp up the cutting-edge legal curriculum and superb faculty you’ve come to expect. CLE credit, of course, will be offered.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This month we’ll make it simple. July 4, 1826. Identify the significance. The person with the most correct answers who is first to respond, will be the winner. Send your responses to me at jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com. Good luck.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Congratulations (AGAIN) to Shari Gottesman who correctly told us that “Old” Tom Morris won the British Open four times (1861, 1862, 1864, and 1867), and holds the record as the oldest winner of The British Open Championship at the ripe old age of 46—a record that stands for 142 years at this point. Shari also told us that not only does he hold the record for the largest winning margin (13 strokes ahead of second place, in 1862), but also that he and his son hold the record as the only father/son to be both winner and runner-up in the same match (“Young” Tom beat his father in 1869!). More prizes...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link