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

On December 23, 2011 the U.S. Department of Justice reversed its decade long position on the applicability of the U.S. Wire Act to online gambling that does not involve sports betting. In previous years, prosecutions were brought against any form of online gambling based on their interpretation of the Wire Act. This opinion, reverses the long standing position and may well clear the way for States to become more aggressive in legislatively enabling intra-State online gaming and who knows, perhaps the Federal government will consider licensing and regulation permitted online gambling. This is not simply big news within the United States. Gaming and gambling operators around the world who may already be working with governments on their lottery initiatives and many other companies who have no presence in the United States may now be looking to establish a foothold and ultimately a major presence in the U.S. Similarly, U.S. casino and gaming operators already licensed, may sense the opportunity for foreign investment and the injection of new capital, new expertise and a more global platform.

Reed Smith and its interdisciplinary team of experienced gaming transactional, e-Commerce, payment, privacy, technology and marketing lawyers have their eye on this new development that has the potential to energize the data-intensive, multi-billion dollar online gambling industry in the U.S. market. Joe Rosenbaum, Ramsey Hanna and Joshua Marker have authored a Client Alert which you can read here:  U.S. Federal Government Reverses its Stance on Online Gaming.

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

In The Wall Street Journal online, Carl Bialik, The Numbers Guy writer and blogger, analyzes the numbers behind advertised versus actual broadband Internet download speeds, and government efforts to measure what the consumer receives compared with what is promised by the ISPs.

In his posting entitled, "How Speedy Are High-Speed Internet Lines?", Mr. Bialik examines the issue of whether statistics derived from a report commissioned by the Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov) are used in a way that is meaningful to consumers when evaluating the offerings of Internet service providers.

Notably, Mr. Bialik's article also compares the approach taken by the UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom) in measuring the speeds offered on the other side of the pond, which maintains the panel of tested carriers in secret to prevent any "gaming" of the test process and system.

Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum is quoted in the posting in connection with some of the legal issues that arise when statistics and factual information contained in government or other reports are used in advertising. Truth (facts) may not, as in the case of defamation, be an absolute defense.

The government may feel that consumers can't handle the truth. Or at least the truth, depending on the context and the manner in which it is used in advertising. When, for example, can statements that are literally true become false or misleading? As has been previously noted in Legal Bytes, using old facts can be deceptive and misleading when facts are outdated and new facts are available, or when the old facts clearly don’t apply.

In some cases, even current facts can be misleading. If I advertise that an article will be posted on Legal Bytes once a month and I post two, can I claim that Legal Bytes beats its own advertised promise to consumers by double? If you and I enter a race and I win, can you advertise that I came in next to last and you came in second? Is that true? Yes. Is it misleading? Yes. I've omitted facts that are material to the information quoted and that are material to the context for you to evaluate.
The truth, after all, is not always that simple and I am grateful for that. As in the words of William Jennings Bryan: "If it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them."

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

Many thanks to the International Law Office (ILO) for publishing a derivative of our Legal Bytes article. You can download and read a personal copy of the ILO posting FTC Targets Ads That Target Kids, or you can read the original Legal Bytes blog posting at "Mom, is it OK for them to follow me?" FTC Targets Ads That Target Kids.

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

A few days ago (October 17), the Mobile Marketing Association released its MMA Mobile Application Privacy Policy, which the MMA asserts is the first industry guideline to deal with data protection and privacy specifically related to mobile and wireless applications. The guideline being made available for comment is slated to be finalized sometime after November 18, 2011, when the MMA’s comment period is scheduled to close. The press release notes that there are currently more than 425,000 iPhone/iPad apps available from Apple’s App Store, and more than 200,000 available for Android.

The document is intended to deal with some of the basic privacy principles and text that developers should consider incorporating into mobile apps to let consumers know how their data is collected and used, as well as information regarding confidentiality and the security of information that becomes available when a consumer installs and uses a mobile app. Obviously, legal disclaimers and disclosures and issues related to privacy and data protection are quite jurisdiction-specific, and compliance will always require consultation with legal counsel to be sure mobile, and all other online and other applications and processes, conform to the legal requirements of each jurisdiction that applies to consumers for that application or process.

Reed Smith’s offices around the world are open, coordinating with our Advertising Technology & Media law practice group, ensuring that lawyers knowledgeable in data protection and privacy, as well as in mobile technology and marketing, are available to help you. As always, if you want to know more about how lawyers who understand can help your business, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

When it comes to advertising, lawyers are bound not only by laws and regulations that apply to all advertisers, but also by the rules set by the professional licensing authorities in each state in the United States, as well as by many “Bar” Associations (Bar as in Barrister, not barista or your local tavern). These authorities and associations often set more stringent advertising standards and rules, based on ethical guidelines and professional standards.

Florida has some of the most stringent restrictions on attorney advertising in the United States. For example, Florida’s rules prohibited ads that were “manipulative” (whatever that means) or that included “background sound other than instrumental music” – presumably to prevent the sounds of ambulance sirens or jail cell doors slamming.

The restrictiveness of attorney advertising, including Florida’s tough rules, has been the subject of criticism, as noted in a previous Wall Street Journal article.

Yesterday, a federal judge in Jacksonville, Fla., ruled that these restrictions are vague and violate the First Amendment rights of lawyers, and must go! The judge’s ruling noted that, “The term ‘manipulative’ is so vague that it fails to adequately put members of the Bar on notice of what types of advertisements are prohibited” – declaring the standard void. The judge also overturned the prohibition on background sounds, noting that such a rule violates the free speech rights of attorneys. Here is the entire Harrell v. Florida Bar decision [PDF] if you are interested.

In honor of the occasion, one clever individual decided to create a “lawyer ad” parody, which, by the way, has sounds previously banned by the Florida regulations. Enjoy.

 

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

I have to thank Carl Bialik, The Numbers Guy writer and blogger for The Wall Street Journal, for including a quote in his recent (September 23, 2011) column, Bag Battle Takes a Statistical Turn.

The column focuses on the use of statistics by competitors and analysts alike – in this case statistics that related to claims made by Chicobag about the environmental impact of reusable plastic bags that many retail stores use to bag items, from groceries to clothing, when you check out with your purchases. It seems that Chicobag made some claims – citing statistics – about its products. Mr. Bialik's column notes that Hilex Poly and some other competitors challenged the claims being made by Chicobag, and were unable to come to grips with either the numbers or the claims; litigation ensued.

Although Mr. Bialik focuses on the way numbers are used and the difficulties inherent in accumulating and using statistics – often when the subject matter may actually be a moving target – the legal issue is similarly complex. More often than not, false, misleading, deceptive advertising claims challenge the explicit veracity of a claim and whether that claim can be substantiated or whether the "net impression" or implicit claims (e.g., pictures or activities) can mislead or potentially deceive consumers. This claim, brought as an action under the Lanham Act – seeking an injunction and damages for false advertising and unfair competition for both a violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and under a state statute (South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, South Carolina Code Annotated § 39-5-10, et seq.) – really revolves around whether the veracity or inaccuracy of claims (even if they can be substantiated or derived from facts that were believed to be true when stated) makes any difference at all in the minds of consumers. 

Without giving away The Numbers Guy's secrets (or forgetting the Federal Trade Commission Act that prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce"), the legal claim, in my view, hinged not on whether the statistics claimed by Chicobag were incorrect or even in some cases materially inaccurate, but whether the particular claims as made using those statistics, were material to a consumer. Whether a consumer was likely to make a different purchasing decision – or might at least be informed enough to consider doing so – based on the degree of inaccuracy.

So when you think of my blog Legal Bytes, I'll close with a claim that everyone sees on those pizza cartons around the country – maybe the world: "You've tried the rest. Now try the best!" Can you say "puffery"?

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

Many of us remember when kids were actually worried about being caught misbehaving. Back in those days, parent’s concern over children’s behavior dealt with whether the kids were ‘fresh’ or ‘mischievous’ or talked too much in school. I was perennially the subject of “he would do so much better in class if he just stopped horsing around and paid attention.” Dear Mrs. Frohman, Mrs. Handel, Mrs. Flynn and Mrs. Bernstein – thanks! It took me several decades, but I finally got the message. Today, however, when we hear the terms children and behavior – well, at least according to the FTC, it ain’t the children that are misbehaving.

In a proposed amendment to rules that have been in effect since 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is proposing amendments to COPPA (the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act”) that “would require parental notification and consent prior to the collection of persistent identifiers where they are used for purposes such as amassing data on a child's online activities or behaviorally targeting advertising to the child." In describing the proposed changes (the proposed  Amendment runs 122 pages long), the FTC notes that these new rules would apply to any identifying or tracking technology (cookies) that would link a child’s browsing behavior across multiple web pages and services – ostensibly including advertising networks and metric/measurement/analytical service providers who routinely have access to such information.

Although a ‘safe harbor’ for compliance with self-regulatory programs is included within the FTC’s proposal, it did suggest that these programs (and individual company compliance with these programs) be more closely monitored and supervised – including mandatory audits every 18 months and reports detailing actions taken by the self-regulatory body against the companies that do not comply. Clearly, one of the FTC’s objectives is to not only ensure a mandatory review of compliance, even for those companies that have not been subject to proceedings, but also to create a record-keeping and reporting system that gives the FTC the ability to obtain detailed information about the proceedings and the compliance efforts of individual companies.

Comments, which are due by November 28, 2011, may be filed with the FTC using it’s COPPA Rule Review Form. If you are interested, concerned, want your voice heard, or otherwise need to be guided by experienced counsel in this area, please feel free to contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you regularly work. We would be happy to help!

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

Late this past June, the Federal Trade Commission indicated it was launching an investigation into Google’s search engine technology and whether it pushes consumers to Google’s other services in a manner that is unfair to competition.

That also means that the FTC will not only be asking Google for records and information about the way it conducts its business, but it will also be asking for information from Google’s competitors (presumably who would provide information gleefully, except that they best be careful about celebrating too prematurely when they hand over information to the government), AND – here it comes – lots of companies who do business with Google: The host of third parties that are advertising and marketing networks, publishers, services, sponsors and, yes, even advertisers and agencies themselves. 

What should you do? Well we’ve prepared a handy reference guide – What Should You Do When the FTC Calls About Google? to explain what the FTC can ask, to explain a few of the basic legal principles that apply to the "asking" the FTC may engage in and, frankly, a warning that you should be calling your lawyers—lawyers knowledgeable in this process—and protecting your interests. For you in-house lawyers out there, if you aren’t familiar with handling these inquiries and third-party requests, perhaps you should consider engaging the services of outside lawyers who know how to help. So whether you know you need help, before or after receiving an inquiry from the FTC – formal or informal – or if you aren’t sure, you might just want to call Joseph I. Rosenbaum, Rachel A. Rubin or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you regularly work. We would be happy to help!

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

New Jersey recently announced an initiative that offers certain tax and penalty abatements to media companies that come forward voluntarily to bring themselves into compliance with the state's tax laws. New Jersey's policy is that any media company with New Jersey-based subscribers or that advertises in the state of New Jersey is subject to New Jersey state tax. But New Jersey officials believe that many media companies are not currently in compliance. So they are offering an abatement program, noting that any non-compliant company that does not come forward within the next 90 days will be treated much worse.

Reed Smith has one of the largest New Jersey state tax practices of any major firm, with extensive experience negotiating these types of tax agreements with New Jersey tax officials; and members of the practice always recommend that discussions with the New Jersey taxing authorities be done through qualified counsel to preserve taxpayer confidentiality. You can read our State Tax Alert on the subject, and if you are interested in learning more, contact David J. Gutowski or any of the Reed Smith lawyers with whom you regularly work. We would be happy to help.

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

You'll have to read the story to find out why Reed Smith's own Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum thinks that "Privacy is the elephant-sized rubber band ball in the room." Joe was recently interviewed by Jeff Gamsey, managing editor of Legal Bisnow, and is featured in yesterday’s lead story on Legal Bisnow entitled, "Who's Right on Privacy?"

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

If you are a music aficionado, you will remember that years ago, The Temptations sang “I’m Doing Fine on Cloud Nine.” 

 

 

If you are a health care provider paying attention to the buzz about cloud computing, you may be concerned about migrating your technology, your data and your applications to a cloud environment.  Or, let’s say you are just confused about the implications. You are not alone.

That’s precisely why our Cloud Computing initiative exists. To provide you with a guidance system – navigational tools to allow you to see sunshine, even on a cloudy day. So, as part of our ongoing commitment to keeping abreast of legal issues, concerns and considerations in the legal world of cloud computing, here, from Vicky G. Gormanly and Joseph I. Rosenbaum, is the next chapter in Reed Smith’s on-going series, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing,” entitled “Health Care in the Cloud – Think You Are Doing Fine on Cloud Nine? Hey, You! Think Again. Better Get Off of My Cloud.” This white paper examines the considerations and concerns that arise for the health care industry and the industry’s associated suppliers, vendors and providers in the wake of complex and evolving regulation and scrutiny – most notably, in the privacy and data protection of medical information – of electronic health records.

As we do each time, we have also updated the entire work, so that in addition to the single ‘Health Care in the Cloud’ white paper, you can access and download a PDF of the entire “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing” compendium, up to date and including all the previous chapters in one document.  After reading the article, instead of doing fine, you just may want to take the advice of The Rolling Stones and "Get Off of My Cloud" until you consult your legal advisors.

 

 

Of course, feel free to contact Vicky Gormanly or Joe Rosenbaum directly if you have any questions or require legal counsel or assistance related to this white paper. Make sure you subscribe via email or get the Legal Bytes RSS feed so you are always in touch with our latest information. Of course, if you ever have questions, you can always contact any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

If you have been reading LegalBytes, you already know that the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a plan to allow the proliferation of new generic top-level Internet domain names (Nightmare on Brand Street: ICANN Adopts Unlimited gTLDs). We hope you also know that a brief, executive-level presentation was made available entitled "The New gTLDs: What Does It Mean for Brand Owners?" that you can still download from "ICANN. You Can. We All Can: Own Your Own gTLD, Of Course!"

Well since then, all has not been quiet on the Western, Eastern, Northern or Southern Fronts, and today, in a letter to ICANN, the Association of National Advertisers ("ANA") detailed major flaws in the proposed ICANN program. You can read the ANA press release, as well as comments regarding ICANN's administration of the root server system for the Internet that the ANA filed with the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce).

Full disclosure: Reed Smith is representing the ANA in this initiative, with the support of other associations and organizations, to put ICANN on notice that the program will be economically disastrous and is unjustified by reports and experts relied upon by ICANN. The starting point for inquiring minds is the simple question: What problem or concern is this new program intended to address? The next question might be: At US$185,000 per application, plus additional annual fees, hosting or domain administration costs; dispute resolution expenses; and the added staff and monitoring (not to mention that companies will not simply abandon their existing domains (e.g., the dot com world); how can the Department of Commerce explain to small- to medium-sized businesses or start-up and emerging-growth companies that this additional cost is well worth it?

If you ask me, there is no shortage of questions, but an apparent paucity of answers. While there may be an emerging chorus of opposition, companies are already being forced to spend money hiring consultants, conducting analyses, commissioning internal task forces—all to study the impact, and determine if they should fight, apply or pursue any number of alternatives, in response to a program of questionable need and more questionable value. But then, that's just my humble and slightly biased opinion.

So if you are stimulated to act or just to ask, you can contact any member of Reed Smith's TLD Task Force: Doug Wood at +1 212-549-0377 or dwood@reedsmith.com; Judy Harris at +1 202 414 9276 or jharris@reedsmith.com; John Hines at +1 312 207 3876 or jhines@reedsmith.com; Alex Klett (Germany) at +49 89 20304 179 or aklett@reedsmith.com; Amy Mushahwar at +1 202 414 9295 or amushahwar@reedsmith.com; Brad Newberg at +1 703 641 4272 or bnewberg@reedsmith.com; Bo Phillips at +1 213 457 8311 or rphillips@reedsmith.com; or Joe Rosenbaum at +1 212 702 1303 or jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com. 

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

Earlier this week, ClickZ reported that the improper use of the Digital Advertising Alliance's behavioral icon

 

is threatening to dilute the self-regulatory effectiveness of its campaign to educate consumers on the risks of online behavioral advertising, and enable them to make an informed judgment in seeking to control the use of their browsing behavior across multiple websites. Legal Bytes has previously reported the initial development and launch, as well as the growing acceptance of the industry’s self-regulatory efforts (just search us for "behavioral advertising" or follow the links through any of our prior posts – e.g., Self-Regulatory Ad Industry Effort Continues to Drive Forward). While the icon has gained wide acceptance as part of the advertising industry’s self-regulatory initiative (See Advertising Industry Collaboration Releases Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles), using it inappropriately or inaccurately may cause consumers to be more confused, rather than educated.

You might be tempted to argue that if advertising that does not involve behavioral information nonetheless includes the DAA icon, what’s the harm? However, if the objective is to educate consumers about the distinctions in how their information is collected and used by advertisers, agencies, network publishers, browser publishers and others in the interactive ecosystem, confusion fuels the concerns already raised by consumer advocacy groups, regulators and lawmakers alike – and that’s counterproductive.

The good news is that the industry campaign to stimulate adoption of the self-regulatory guidelines and the inclusion of the icon in relevant advertising is gaining momentum – a sign the industry can and will police and regulate itself. Innocent mistakes in the name of compliance are certainly better than abuse or ignorance, so let’s not be too quick to throw stones. That said, as consumers increasingly see the icon and begin to appreciate, and take advantage of, the self-regulatory efforts, it behooves the industry to do a better job of making sure the educational component is consistent and not ICONfusing!

As always, if you need more information about the advertising industry’s self-regulatory initiative, advice regarding compliance, or legal help in understanding the dynamic and ever-changing environment of online and mobile interactive advertising, marketing and privacy, call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work – our lawyers deal with these issues every day.

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

An Open IMHO Letter to Google

Dear Google:

I’ve heard that the FTC has served you with a civil investigative demand in connection with your search-advertising business. They have raised the question as to whether your search engine technology pushes consumers to your other services in a manner that is unfair to your competition.

Now the FTC will try to determine if your market power is dominant because your practices are unfair and whether consumers are harmed, either directly or by not having competitive choices in the marketplace. Of course, the FTC has taken into account the complaints of your competitors. That is significant because I’ve heard a rumor that companies rarely try to incite trouble for their competitors at a regulatory agency.

So what happens next? Senior executives scramble. Lawyers do research and prepare briefs. Finance people set up cost centers and budgets. Evidence is gathered. Experts are retained. Distraction will be pervasive, invasive, consistent and persistent - until a settlement is reached. It won’t be pretty. It won’t be fun. It never is. But it’s here and at least the sword of Damocles is not hovering above. The issues will be confronted and the scope will be expanded – government always uses what it finds as a basis for going farther than originally planned (it’s great leverage). Then the serious business of trying to reach an accord will begin.

This isn’t about winning or losing. It’s about making a point. But it’s de facto, a recognition that you are thriving at what you do and have grown large and successful as a result. True, this action is probably not the recognition you prefer, but when the government wants everyone to believe you might be too big, too dominant, too much in control at the expense of competition and the detriment of consumers, the target is painted on you and it’s just a question of how much pain is inflicted before a settlement is reached.

Now I am not an economist or a market dominance expert, I’m a lawyer and blogger; but I thought I might help out by offering some observations you can bring to the attention of the FTC that might give the government (maybe others in the industry and even your competitors), pause to question whether their analysis, their efforts, their investigation, is correct or necessary. I’ve taken the liberty of including an attachment to this letter (see Attachment A) that provides some tips. Feel free to use them and tell your lawyers to back them up with lots of research and briefs – those are always impressive and useful.

Sincerely,

Joe Rosenbaum at Legal Bytes.

P.S. If your people end up spending hours, days and months with government regulators, working through lunches, late nights pouring over documents, huddled around conference tables, it may give you an opportunity to point the officials to their next target. You know who.

P.P.S. Feel free to use these and other quotes from the FTC if you like:

“And, as the information industry is still emerging, quite dynamic, and not yet well understood, plausible efficiency benefits should, perhaps, weigh heavily in the balance against asserted risks of decreased competition, especially when the technology is changing so fast that adverse effects on competition are likely to be transitory.”

“Antitrust and Technology: What’s On The Horizon?” Prepared Remarks of Federal Trade Commissioner Christine A. Varney, before the American Society of Association Executives, Legal Symposium, Washington, D.C., October 6, 1995

“A less confrontational approach suggests that because of the robust pace of innovation in high-tech industries, government should not intervene 'unless certain that doing so will benefit consumers and the economy.' (See, Priest, The Law and Economics of U.S. v. Microsoft, AEI Newsletter, August 1998).” Antitrust Analysis in High-Tech Industries: A 19th Century Discipline Addresses 21st Century Problems, Prepared Remarks of Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, to the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law's Antitrust Issues in High-Tech Industries Workshop, February 25-26, 1999, Scottsdale, Arizona

You really need to see Attachment "A" so if it isn't already displayed, point whichever browser you are using and click the "Continue Reading" text on the left below.

Continue Reading...

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

Earlier today, the FTC established a web page on its Website entitled, “Facts from the FTC: What You Should Know About Mobile Apps.”

The FTC web page contains a link to the U.S. federal government’s website OnGuardOnline, which provides government and industry-related information about how to protect and secure the information that may be available when you are online (and now when you are "app" happy on your wireless and mobile devices).

Are you in the online or mobile advertising industry? Do you create, use, share or obtain data from "apps"? Expect more, not less, regulatory and government agency activity in this area in the months and years ahead.

If you need help from lawyers with decades of experience, Reed Smith is the place to look. Feel free to call me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers within the Advertising Technology & Media law practice group, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work. We will be happy to help you.

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

A few days ago, Legal Bytes announced that the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a plan to allow virtually unlimited new top level Internet domain names – each is referred to as a gTLD (Nightmare on Brand Street: ICANN Adopts Unlimited gTLDs).

In response to numerous questions and requests for more information, here is some additional material for your consideration.

First, you can download a copy of the current gTLD Applicant Guidebook.

Second, you can read or download a copy of a brief, executive-level presentation entitled, "The New gTLDs: What Does It Mean for Brand Owners?" describing the changes, the implications and some additional information that may be relevant to brand owners in evaluating the implications of the new scheme.

As always, if you have further questions, you can contact me directly or any member of our gTLD team: Douglas J. Wood, John L. Hines, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, Cynthia O'Donoghue, Dr. Alexander R. Klett, LL.M., Steven J. Birt and Brad R. Newberg.

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

The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has approved the plan for unlimited new gTLDs (i.e., top level Internet domain names) and will soon start taking applications. Brand owners dreading the adoption of a system permitting unlimited gTLDs now face the reality of this dramatic change to the domain name system.

While the domain name system is currently limited to 22 "generic" gTLDs (.com, .org, .net, .info, .biz, etc.), country codes (e.g., .us, .uk, .cn), and certain special community-sponsored domains (e.g., the .xxx for adult entertainment), the new rules permit entities anywhere in the world to apply for and, if granted rights by ICANN, to operate a gTLD for virtually any term, word or phrase, including your names, trade names, trademark terms, brand and product names.

My partner, John L. Hines, has been following this occurrence and is about as close to these developments and their implications as any legal advisor can be; but we have a global team of lawyers – Douglas J. Wood, Cynthia O'Donoghue, Dr. Alexander R. Klett, LL.M., Steven J. Birt and Brad R. Newberg – who, with John, have put together a Client Alert entitled “.anything On Its Way: New Generic Top Level Domains Will Launch January 12”.

Of course, if you need additional information or guidance, or both, please contact any of them. They will be happy to help.

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

This post was written by Joseph I. Rosenbaum and Keri S. Bruce.

As part of our ongoing commitment to keeping abreast of legal issues, concerns and considerations in the legal world of cloud computing, most of you know we have been publishing regular topical updates to our Cloud Computing initiative – new chapters and white papers intended to provoke thought, stimulate ideas and, most of all, demonstrate the thought leadership Reed Smith attorneys bring to bear when new and important trends and initiatives in the commercial world give rise to new and interesting legal issues. If you didn’t know, re-read the previous run-on sentence!

So here, from Joe Rosenbaum and Keri Bruce, is a glimpse at some issues that apply to the world of advertising and marketing arising from Cloud Computing. This next chapter in Reed Smith’s on-going series, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing,” is titled “Cloud Computing in Advertising & Marketing: Looking for the Silver Lining, Making Rain.” This white paper tries to examine the considerations and concerns that arise within the advertising and marketing industries in the wake of complex and evolving regulation and scrutiny. We hope it provides some insight into the issues and the factors that apply, even as the industry and the regulatory landscape continue to evolve.

As we do each time, we have updated the entire work so that, in addition to the single "Advertising & Marketing" services’ white paper, you can access and download a PDF of the entire “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing” compendium, up to date and including all the previous chapters in one document.

Of course, feel free to contact Joe Rosenbaum or Keri Bruce directly if you have any questions or require legal counsel or assistance related to advertising and marketing. Make sure you subscribe via email or get the Legal Bytes RSS Feed so you are always in touch with our latest information. And if you ever have questions, you can always contact any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

Facebook is facing another class-action, this time in Federal Court in Illinois, charging it used minors in its advertising. Although I haven't done a search, there are at least two or three others – federal actions in California and New York and at least one state lawsuit filed in Southern California. In each of these cases, the allegations are essentially the same. Facebook takes user names, pictures and preferences, using the "Like" buttons, and then mashes or moshes (that word is the pits) them with paid sponsorship and advertising to target specific ads – sometimes referred to as "enhanced" or "premium" advertisements. The user's name or likeness can be "pushed" to their Facebook friends – presumably people who the user has specifically permitted to be able to see such information; and also presumably by becoming a "friend," they, in turn, have manifested a desire or interest to know what the individual is doing, what she or he likes, opinions, where they are and what they are doing.

Aside from issues of free speech, voluntary opt-in and parent consent, especially where the individual is a minor and their name, image or likeness is used in an "ad" (and it's not clear or settled that these are all "advertisements"), a question arises as to whether section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act insulates Facebook from liability as a neutral communications platform that doesn't control what each individual does or offers – so long as they act in accordance with Facebook's terms and conditions. Some commentators point out, however, that in 2007, a Federal Appeals Court in California (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) held that Roommates.com was not immune when their users posted ads that were illegal under the Fair Housing Act (See, Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com LLC [PDF]. That said, in the Roommates case, the ads were, to some extent, structured, and categories of content and information for the ads encouraged, if not solicited, populating the database of advertising for roommates using the website. Facebook may well argue that simply providing a "Like" button and making it available for use, is no different from a brand owner making a gadget or widget icon available should a user want to place it on their site. The "platform" – in this case Facebook – has no part in the user's decision, nor is it offering to customize the user's "Like" decision in any way that could be construed as editing or adding new content as a publisher.

One thing is very clear. Nothing is clear. Stay tuned!

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

This post was written by Judith L. Harris, with assistance from Reed Smith Summer Interns James Duchesne and Linda Shim.

A new trend is quickly taking hold. In recent months, a sizeable number of class action lawsuits have been filed involving unsolicited text messages. A messaging system called "Short Message Service," better known as "SMS", allows individuals to receive text messages on mobile phones.  Consumers unhappy with bulk, unsolicited SMS marketing messages are filing suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. § 227 ("TCPA") in alarming numbers. You can read a summary of the TCPA Rules [PDF], but to recap for these purposes, the TCPA prohibits any call from an automatic telephone dialing system to any mobile telephone service or any service for which the called party is charged. Since most mobile phone service plans charge on a message received/sent basis, the fact that SMS is subject to the TCPA's prohibitions (just like land line phone calls), has caught many by surprise - including many of the most sophisticated operators in the mobile marketing space.

Lusskin v. Google [PDF] is one of the latest of these cases to be filed (Federal Court in California) and takes aim at Disco, launched by Google just this past March. In Lusskin, the plaintiffs are claiming that the Disco app gives Google the ability to "harvest all phone numbers" added by consumers so that Google "can independently send its own text message advertisements" promoting the Disco application. Individuals can use Disco to input names and mobile phone numbers (into groups); however, no permission or consent is required from someone whose name and number are added! When the group starts, Disco sends a message to members welcoming them, instructing them how the service works and how they can opt out. Once the groups are formed, messages can be sent from a single source, for a single charge, to all group members. Each member of the group receives the message and each can respond and, you guessed it, each response is sent to every other group member – an SMS mobile "chat room."

Unbeknownst to Mr. Lusskin, he was added to one of these Disco groups and his mobile phone notified him of a text message from an unfamiliar number – the "welcome" message from Disco. Unfortunately, the "chat room" quickly turned into an angry and confused barrage of messages from the other unsuspecting group members responding to Disco's first, unsolicited message. Messages poured in so rapidly and voluminously that Mr. Lusskin claims he was unable to use his mobile phone until the alleged 105+ SMS messages had all been received. Mr. Lusskin has filed as a class action, seeking relief for all persons who received the unsolicited initial welcoming text message from the Disco service. Mr. Lusskin also wants to include, as plaintiffs in the action, anyone who opted-out of the Disco service within 24 hours of receiving an unsolicited welcoming text message, or who was a member of a Disco group that was closed within 24 hours of its creation.

With a potential penalty of $500 in damages for each TCPA violation - each unsolicited message (and triple that number if a plaintiff can show the violation was willful or knowing) – no wonder consumers are seeking to use the TCPA to get some attention, or rather seeking to avoid getting unsolicited attention.

Are you in the mobile marketing arena? Need to understand the rules and regulations surrounding the medium? If you are an advertiser, marketer or sponsor involved in promotions, the message (content), we can help you keep abreast of Lusskin and its brethren as they seek to carve out a place under TCPA regulation. If you need help, contact Judith L. Harris, or me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

Although it might be intuitively obvious when you think about it, most people have simply overlooked billboards as a growing advertising medium. Did I say "growing"? Well yes, I did. More and more highways and roads are being built. More vehicles are on the road, fuel costs and mass transit subsidies notwithstanding. Stuck in traffic? Sitting on a commuter rail or waiting at the shelter for the next public bus to whisk you off to work? Guess what. You're staring at an advertisement. Increasingly, outdoor space is being used to serve multiple advertisements – tri-fold slat advertising, roll-away-screen advertising. But in case you haven't noticed, digital billboards are beginning to pop up everywhere – New York City has them on the sides of buses and the tops of taxi cabs.

Makes sense. As consumers have taken more control over the advertising they see on the devices they use, what better place to capture attention than on a billboard you are simply staring at while you are waiting, traveling or driving to your next destination. So yes, digital billboards are growing even faster (see, for example, an article posted by the BBC news service in the UK entitled, Outdoor Advertising Goes Digital).  Not only that, but digital billboards provide the ability to alter messages at will and can be interactive – with QR Codes, Bluetooth sensors, RFID tags, SMS Text message promotions (to see some examples, take a look at the slides from my recent presentation at the 10th Annual SME Digital Forum - Rosenbaum Presentation).

Legal issues? Well first, there is the intrinsically public nature of billboard advertising generally – which means you have to be more sensitive to standards, community norms and specific regulations applicable to categories of advertising (e.g., municipal ordinances regarding tobacco advertising near schools, etc.). Plug number 1 – you should always consult your legal advisors when reviewing billboard advertising. For example, could this have been approved? The disclosures are there, after all!

OK, just kidding. But that said, a new issue has arisen regarding the safety of digital advertising for drivers. Flashing lights, moving images, animated sequences can be distracting. Well the debate isn't all that new. (Digital Billboards Spark Safety Debate (2007); Digital billboards: Good business or danger to drivers? (2010)). Nor is it limited to the United States (e.g., Do digital billboards add to danger on UAE roads? (2009)).

Perhaps the increased number of digital billboards is raising concern that every roadway, bus shelter and available space outdoors will be consumed with Times Square-like illumination all the time. So far, studies report that digital outdoor advertising is safe. For example, see the March report of Watchfire Digital Outdoor entitled, "Digital Billboard Safety Confirmed". The safety issue likely will continue to rear its head periodically, along with questions about propriety of certain types of ads served on digital billboards, and I assume the inevitable claim that the lights are keeping everyone in the neighborhood up at night – although on a long drive late at night, perhaps flashing lights are a good thing.

In any event, outdoor billboard advertising isn't dead. It's being transformed, along with all other forms of advertising and marketing. Need help from lawyers who understand both advertising and digital transformation? Reed Smith is the place to look. Feel free to call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

"Dot Com Disclosures" [PDF], the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) guidance for online advertisers, was issued in May 2000.

Yesterday, the FTC issued an announcement [FTC Staff Invites Comments Regarding "Dot Com Disclosure" Business Guidance Publication [PDF]] asking for comments and suggestions from interested parties regarding updates to the online advertising guidance, based on the fact that when Dot Com Disclosure was first released, social media, mobile marketing, "apps" and similar innovative advertising and content distribution mechanisms either did not exist, or were in their infancy.

The online world and the online and mobile world of advertising has changed radically and continues to evolve dynamically since 2000, and if you want your comments to be considered, the FTC must receive them by July 11, 2011. Comments will generally become matters of public record at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.

Are you in the online or mobile advertising industry? Do you create, use, share or obtain data from "apps"?   Do you want your views to be considered – whether as part of an industry association or individually, or both? Need help crafting your submissions and comments?

If you need help from lawyers with decades of experience, Reed Smith is the place to look. Feel free to call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers within the Advertising Technology & Media law practice group, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work. We will be happy to help you.

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

As we’ve done in the past, Legal Bytes is happy to post, in addition to charts and references and links to valuable sources of information, a copy of the presentation given by Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum at the 10th Annual SME Digital Forum hosted by La Asociación de Ejecutivos de Ventas y Mercadeo de Puerto Rico (SME) (Association of Sales and Marketing Executives of Puerto Rico).

The presentation, in PDF format, can be read and downloaded right here, “Social and Mobile and Clouds, Oh My! The Brave New World of Marketing in the Digital Age,” with only the audio/visual clips and commercials having been omitted because of their file size. Of course, if you want further information about the presentation or any of the materials covered or referred to, please don’t hesitate to contact Joe directly at jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com.

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

Although unconfirmed directly, CNN and CNET are reporting that Twitter has acquired London-based TweetDeck for a reported $40 million. TweetDeck is a desktop application that uses Adobe Air and is attempting to create a user interface in columnar form to entice users to display and ostensibly manage their social media connections.

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

Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum has been invited to speak at the prestigious SME Digital Forum hosted by La Asociación de Ejecutivos de Ventas y Mercadeo de Puerto Rico (SME) (Association of Sales and Marketing Executives of Puerto Rico).

This 10th edition of the Forum will be held Wednesday, May 25, and includes the presentation of the "2011 SME Digital & Mobile Behavioral Study" and the "Digital SME Awards." From what we understand, this is the first time the Forum has been expanded to include concurrent seminars and lectures on topics such as legal, digital marketing and emerging trends. An honor to be invited; a privilege to attend; an exciting opportunity to learn and network with other professionals. See you there!

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

In a turbo boost for the advertising industry’s self-regulatory initiative (See Advertising Industry Collaboration Releases Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles), Chrysler has picked Evidon as its exclusive provider for online behavioral advertising compliance services. Both in advertising and through website notifications, Evidon will power the delivery and display of the Ad Choices icon on Chrysler advertising online, and the corresponding disclosures to consumers about how their online behavior is collected and information used – and allowing those consumers to opt-out. Of the U.S. automakers, Chrysler is the first to use the system across its brands; and if a consumer prefers not to allow Chrysler to use behavioral data, he or she can simply click on the blue icon, which opens a pop-up browser window that explains how the advertising is matched with that consumer’s browsing activity and other information—not only to inform the consumer, but also to allow the consumer to opt-out of future behavioral advertising originating from Chrysler ads. We understand that each of the individual brand websites within the Chrysler group will also have notices that give individuals comparable information, and notices regarding how they can opt out as well.

As always, if you need more information about the advertising industry’s self-regulatory initiative; advice regarding compliance; or legal help in understanding the dynamic, ever-changing environment for advertising, marketing and privacy, call me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work. Our lawyers deal with these issues every day.

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

Thanks to the Digital Marketing Committee of the Association of National Advertisers for having me attend and give a presentation on mobile advertising and marketing yesterday. A copy of the presentation is available for your reading enjoyment right here: “Mobile Marketing or I Know Where You Will Be Next Summer & Other Mobile Marketing Myths.” (PDF)

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

The Information Commissioner's Office in the United Kingdom, in furtherance of the European Union's "browser cookie" laws (EU Privacy and Communications Directive), has just published a set of guidelines that commercial enterprises will need to comply with when the new law goes into effect May 26. (See ICO Advice on New Cookie Law Published.) Because the laws' requirements relate to technology and marketing, the intention of the new guidelines is to provide guidance on compliance for businesses.

For background, in case you haven't been following this closely, in November 2009, the European Parliament amended the Directive of Privacy and Electronic Communications 2002/58/EC (sometimes referred to as the e-Privacy Directive) that mandated that websites give consumers the right to opt out of receiving cookies (in most cases by changing settings on their web browsers). The 2009 amendments reversed the requirement, setting the default as "opt in." Consumers will have to give permission (informed consent) to a website in advance, to allow a cookie to be placed on their computer.

The UK ICO's guidance makes it clear that all businesses, private and public, will be required to get consent from the user, in advance of having a browser cookie downloaded and installed on the consumer's computer. In addition, the ICO has amended the UK Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations to mandate that clear and thorough information – to ensure informed consent - is provided to end users, explaining why their information is being stored and how it will be used by the commercial enterprise. Expect to see consumer-directed information soon, alerting consumers as to what their rights are and what to expect as businesses comply with the new law and regulations.

As you probably know if you are a loyal and longstanding reader, Legal Bytes in 2009 reported that the major players in the online advertising industry had issued self-regulatory principles concerning online behavioral advertising (Advertising Industry Collaboration Releases Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles), and intended to create an industry self-policing mechanism, as well as disclosures to consumers concerning the use of their personal information. The self-regulatory mechanisms in the United States – these being similar – have followed an "opt out" approach to consumer privacy and the control of personal information. For multinational and international businesses worried about compliance (and that includes all you web browser publishers) – well, it's complicated.

As always, if you need guidance for your advertising, marketing, privacy or data protection efforts, call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work. Our lawyers deal with these issues every day.

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

Coming on the heels of a bill aimed at preventing children from being tracked, introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) (see, Rep. Markey Releases a Kids Do Not Track Discussion Draft Bill): Today, Jay D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Chair of the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee in the U.S. Senate, introduced a Do Not Track Online bill that would empower the FTC to promulgate rules "that establish standards for the implementation of a mechanism by which an individual can simply and easily indicate whether the individual prefers to have personal information collected by providers of online services, including by providers of mobile applications and services . . . "

A copy of the proposed legislation is available here for you to download and read Do Not Track Online Act of 2011 – Proposed Rockefeller Bill (PDF). Of course, if you need legal guidance, advice or representation as these bills are introduced and make their way through the legislative process, don’t hesitate to call us. We are here to help.

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

After several months of anticipation, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released his Kids "Do Not Track" discussion draft bill. At face value, this bill appears to have a narrow focus of online behavioral activities toward children, which we normally define under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act ("COPPA") as any individual younger than 13. However, such is not the case. This bill would amend COPPA to expand some marketing provisions to teens under age 18, and may, in effect, require better age screens, given teen savvy (and their propensity to lie about their age).

If enacted, this bill has the potential to create complications when marketing to the crucial college age and young adult market as more sophisticated age screens will require all to enter information that they might not want to share online.

To read the entire Reed Smith Alert and find out more, just check out Rep. Markey Releases a Kids Do Not Track Discussion Draft Bill.

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

Although it might not be obvious from the way the memorandum and discussion topic listing is phrased, the FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration is examining the use of social media, networking and new technology in assessing its Risk Communication protocols. The memorandum lists some publicly available background materials as reference points for the committee meeting yesterday (Background, May 5, 2011 Risk Communication Advisory Committee Meeting), and there is an associated list of discussion topics for the meeting (FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee, Discussion Topics).

As we all appreciate, communication and dissemination of information about food and drugs affects the health and safety of literally millions of people. Preventing misinformation, as well as the timely availability of helpful, relevant and important information, is critical to any communication strategy. The Risk Communication Advisory Committee clearly appreciates the fact that technology (including social networking and mobile communication channels) can often quickly provide and make available accurate and helpful information to health and medical professionals, as well as to the population that might be at risk or individuals who need to know in any given situation – whether they are or are not on social networks or online. That said, like any other new technology or new application, implementing a system that optimizes the benefits of the use of technology, while minimizing the risks inherent in such adoption, is not a trivial or simple task.

If you are interested in following the proceedings, or have an interest in the use of social networking, cloud computing or any number of new technologies as they relate to legal, regulatory and compliance obligations and requirements, don’t hesitate to contact me or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We will make sure you get the help you need.

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

In January, Ace Metrix released a report questioning the relative value of celebrity endorsements ("Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing A Myth Of Advertising Effectiveness"). Just last month, a new study, co-sponsored by Ketchum and conducted by the Nielsen Company and BlogHer, took a look at social media trends among women and found online women were almost twice as likely to be influenced to consider a product based on a blogger they follow, rather than a pitch from a celebrity (2011 Social Media Matters Study).

Most of us understand that a few seconds of exposure on Oprah can mean the top of the best seller list, but celebrity steps and mis-steps can often pose, shall we say, "challenges," for a brand. Celebrities such as Tiger Woods, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan and a host of others have seen their ups and downs. Correspondingly, advertising-endorsement considerations when dealing with any celebrity can be a mixed bag, depending on timing, relevance, image and a host of other factors—many outside the sponsor's control. Sometimes neutral and other times negative, these recent studies suggest there are fewer success stories than one might otherwise assume.

Does this mean the end of celebrity endorsements? Probably not. But it may mean advertisers and agencies will become more selective and objective in evaluating the cost of promotions involving celebrities. Someone suggested celebrities should be compensated based on the "performance" of the advertising. First of all, that's nothing new. However, in case you are wondering—and to throw in a quick legal byte—if a celebrity has a financial interest in the outcome of advertising involving that celebrity, yes, Legal Bytes has already noted that the FTC has an "app"etite for that: FTC (Revised) Endorsement Guides Go Into Effect.

The Advertising Technology & Media law practice group at Reed Smith has lawyers with decades of experience in working with advertisers and agencies handling matters involving celebrity endorsements—the good, the bad and, sometimes, the ugly. Let us know if you need us. We are happy to help.

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

Earlier today, an Interagency Working Group released a report on the Federal Trade Commission's website making sweeping recommendations relating to the marketing of food to children. The report, entitled "Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts Request for Comments," is the result of the U.S. Congress' request that standards for the marketing of food products to children under the age of 18 be subject to review and recommendation by an interagency task force comprised of the FTC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Department of Agriculture.

The recommendations in the Principals bifurcate foods into two categories, for determinations as to the appropriate marketing approaches and restrictions: (a) foods that are deemed to make a "meaningful contribution to a healthful diet"; and (b) foods that, given their nutritional content, should have their advertising limited.

While the proposed recommendations are referred to as "voluntary," this not only flies in the face of the inevitable pressure on advertising practices in the food and beverage industry, but—if previous government agency regulatory recommendations, guidelines or proposals are a precedent—these can also quickly become de facto standards that the regulators themselves use in enforcing "industry standards." As with so many areas currently under scrutiny by the regulators both in the United States and around the world, deference to self-regulation is a welcome trend; but if it is mere lip service, and if industries are not given a meaningful opportunity to design both self-regulatory standards, and appropriate and meaningful enforcement mechanisms, it simply ends up creating further adversarial tensions and needless contention between industry and regulators – none of which is ultimately good for consumers in terms of cost or benefit.

The Interagency Working Group has provided a very short window for public comment: comments are due by June 13, 2011, although with enough outcry, given the scope and breadth of the Principles, they might be persuaded to extend the deadline. That said, if your company is in the food and beverage industry and will be affected by any government or self-regulatory pronouncements in this arena, now is the time to engage in the dialogue – in your own right and through the various industry associations that may be submitting comments. Of course, if you need help and guidance, the Advertising Technology & Media law practice at Reed Smith has lawyers ready to counsel, assist and represent you.

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

On April 5, 2011, the International Law Office published a customized version of the March 14, 2011 blog on Legal Bytes, Twitter Settles with FTC - Gets 20 Years' Probation! You can read it online or download your own copy of the ILO posting here: ILO Posts Twitter Settlement news.

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

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R–Ariz.) have introduced a bill in Congress to legislatively enable a statutory bill of rights for consumers with respect to commercial privacy. You can read the full text of the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 (PDF), and Reed Smith will have a more complete analysis for your reading enjoyment soon; but the bill clearly intends to require that as little data about an individual is collected as possible, and give individuals a right to know how their information is being used. At first reading, the bill does not provide a private right of action, but does contemplate a self-regulatory program, perhaps a nod to the industry initiative that is highlighted in a recent Legal Bytes posting "OBA Self-Regulatory Initiative Gets Boost from Yahoo! & Google." You can search for privacy, behavioral advertising and/or self-regulatory on our site and you will find more about this on the Legal Bytes blog.

It may be too early to tell just how much faith Congress has in the industry initiative. That said, it would seem somewhat foolish – given that the FTC and many Congressional leaders have argued for and applauded industry self-regulatory measures – not to afford an industry-sponsored, dynamic, self-regulatory program, a chance to work. As we’ve seen so many times before, along with the technology, consumers’ expectations of privacy, their tastes, commercial needs and sensitivities often change rapidly.

As always, if you need guidance for your advertising and marketing efforts, or privacy and data-protection counsel from lawyers who have experience and resources aligned to deal with these issues every day, feel free to call me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

I picked up an interesting article published today in the International Law Office, and since the article is listed in the category of Information Technology, I thought some Legal Bytes readers with international interests and activities that are "content," "search" or "link" related might not see it.

The article summarizes a case in which Yahoo! Italia was held responsible for failing to remove links to infringing versions of a motion picture – thus, in the court's view, resulting in contributory liability. What is also of interest is that the Italian court ordered Yahoo! in Italy to not only remove links to websites that "served" the allegedly infringing content, but also to remove any other websites that contained links to the websites serving that content – even if those websites had other links or provided other legitimate content, features and functions. Such a decision could have far-ranging implications since it goes to the heart of the ripple effect that linking has on legitimate content-sharing. It also raises the chilling specter of restricting access to otherwise legitimate, non-infringing content, features and functions based on a finding that there is a link to infringing material.

While one can make the case that such strong enforcement helps deter and ultimately prevent infringement, the breadth of the decision and the fact that a rights-holder can simply send a notice without requiring formal "proof" of infringement, means every link to every website that connects to an offending website could potentially be forced to de-link, and arguably bears some liability for contributory infringement. Think of the connections on social media, embedded players and links on the web – Wow!

If you want to read the entire article, you can access it right here Yahoo! Italia liable for searchable content. And as always, if you need advice from a U.S. lawyer who has done work with Italian companies and legal colleagues in Italy, call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

I have been stupid. It's everywhere and I couldn't see it. I'm looking at trying to invest my hard-earned dollars and wondering about the future of mobile and social media and technology. Hmmmm, maybe I should pour some money into that sector of the economy. But how to decide – price-to-earnings ratio, market multiple, return on equity, assets, sales? Then it dawned on me. Shhhh .. . I'll let you in on a secret I discovered. It's biology – natural selection, evolution, survival of the fittest – Charles Darwin was right.

Think about it. Sony says "It's in our DNA." Twitter is for the birds. Social media is in your Face(book). Think it stops there? No way. Apple – the original sin. Gone viral – my anti-virus software has been in use for years. Make a firewall to stop it from spreading. Cookies? Baked to perfection! Who gives a Hoot(suite)? Oh and if you think the Droid or Android are not part of the mix, just watch Star Wars for those artificial parts, artificial intelligence and artificial sweeteners. 

My blog has gone viral along with YouTube videos. Word of mouth marketing – even the blog conjures up images of Steve McQueen in a very old movie ("The Blob"– who remembers, raise your hands). Hear the buzz – not the sound of bees, but rather the web browsers. Firefox? How about the wireless photographic memory cards from Eye-fi? Did I mention cloud computing – is that cloud 9 or should I get off my cloud as the Rolling Stones asked me to do many years ago?

Not convinced yet? Just the other day researchers at IBM announced that they have developed a nanoparticle that has the ability to target and destroy bacteria that has otherwise proved to be resistant to antibiotics. Now I originally thought a nanoparticle was something harvested from Ork, the planet made famous by Robin Williams in the television series "Mork & Mindy." But apparently, nanoparticles are itsy bitsy particles, so small you could fit tens of thousands of them on the head of a pin.    

So all you investment advisors, financial analysts, brokers and day traders, watch out. Pick the biologically named company of choice or, better yet, start a company, and watch it evolve, grow, mature and hopefully not crash before I sell. I personally am not surprised that Jim Beam has been around since 1795! 

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

Knock Knock. Who's there? Andover. Andover who? Andover those records Pandora.

So Pandora Media, Inc., the company that brings us the popular Pandora® Internet Radio, has reportedly received a subpoena from a federal grand jury looking into the practice of information-sharing involving smart phone applications. Pandora did indicate, however, it had been advised it was not a target of the grand jury investigation, and that it believed the legal request for the production of information had been served on an "industry-wide basis" to many other smart phone application publishers. Not much else is known about either the specific subpoenas (or is the correct Latin, "subpoenae"?) or the nature or focus of the federal investigation; but guessing that it relates to the sharing of information about location-based target-marketing practices, and the disclosure of information by and among ad publishing networks, can't be far from the target.

The Advertising Technology & Media law practice group, in conjunction with our global regulatory practice and litigators when we need them, has experience in dealing with such subpoenae (or is the correct English "subpoenas"?). Think about knowing how to respond before you get served – with a subpoena or on a platter. OK. I'm still in the April Fool's Day spirit. What can I say?

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

Back in 2009, Legal Bytes reported that a coalition of the major players in the online advertising industry had gotten together and issued self-regulatory principles concerning online behavioral advertising (Advertising Industry Collaboration Releases Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles). These principles were and remain intended to create an industry self-policing mechanism that provides, among other things, discipline and disclosures to consumers concerning the use of personal information.

Amidst much activity and debate – the good, the bad and the ugly – the industry has moved forward, creating a Digital Advertising Alliance ("DAA") (and website), and enlisting the aid of the Council of Better Business Bureaus to develop and implement an enforcement process, much like the process that has worked quite successfully in traditional advertising for well more than 30 years! By the way, for the record, I refer to online behavioral advertising (OBA) as "digital behavioral advertising" or "DBA," since excluding mobile and wireless would be a mistake, and "online" conjures up images of "wired."

In a major show of support for the self-regulatory initiative, both Google and Yahoo! have announced they will begin using the "forward i" icon (shown below), promulgated by the DAA for its behavioral advertising.

Aside from the obvious boost to the industry's self-regulatory efforts, the uniformity will help lessen the likelihood of consumer confusions regarding industry practices across the web. The DAA icon will also serve as a live link, taking users to user-based tools that a consumer can use to modify the behavioral and identified interest categories advertisers use to serve targeted advertising. The tools would also enable a consumer to opt out of receiving such advertising. Yahoo! actually will prevent partner sites from collecting consumer data if a consumer opts out, while Google will disable interest-based cookies and remove demographic and interest-related information from its Chrome browser when a consumer opts out.

Neither the industry's self-regulatory program, nor the consumer tools available through the DAA's program, were ever intended to stop data tracking (as you probably know, "do not track" is getting lots of play in Congress and the media lately). Microsoft and Mozilla have separately introduced modifications to their IE and Firefox browsers (i.e., HTTP header settings) that allow consumers to alter the settings and alert advertisers that they have opted out of tracking; although the settings do not block tracking per se, they will simply serve as notice to the companies that may be tracking user data of that consumer's preference.

As always, if you need guidance for your advertising and marketing efforts or privacy and data protection from legal representatives who deal with these issues every day, feel free to call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

On December 20, 2010, a Legal Bytes blog entitled Look! Out the Window! It's a Peeping Tom! No, It's Google Street View noted the problems Google was facing as a result of a faux pas in connection with its Street View automobiles roaming the streets equipped with cameras. As we reported earlier, Google's picture-capturing vehicles appear to have accidentally gathered data over unsecured Wi-Fi systems in more than one country and city around the globe – including France.

Although Google agreed to delete the Wi-Fi data collected accidentally and has apologized, if one picture is worth a thousand words, France has apparently decided that Google's pictures were worth about €100,000. This is reportedly the highest fine imposed by the CNIL (the National Commission for Information Freedom – the French data-protection regulatory body) since it was given the authority to levy financial penalties in 2004. The financial sanctions were levied because Google's activities were considered to be "unfair collection" of data under French law, data that Google was able to collect for economic advantage. The "accident" resulted from some "sniffing" programming code that ostensibly carelessly found its way into the equipment capturing Street View data in the cars as they roamed highways and byways.

While other countries are considering fines and investigations that are on-going, some countries (e.g., the United States) have apparently dropped the investigations or are not considering penalties at this time. This is not the last we will hear of location-based or geo-targeted information raising an uproar, as people "check in" and the surveillance society becomes closer to reality than we often care to admit. The law and regulation are not harmonized around the globe, and many regulators and laws don't even adequately address the problem – often created because, like so many other issues in our digital world, some information is being shared voluntarily, some is not, and some is a blend.

As always, if you need advice and counsel about your own advertising and marketing efforts, or privacy and data protection guidance from legal representatives who deal with these issues – in the United States and around the globe – every day, feel free to call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

The Adword Lawsuit

Now D (Defendant) buys competitor's words from a search engine, you see.
What words do they buy? Just brands that are popular - with you and with me.
They buy words I might search for when I am looking for thee. 
When we search for P's (Plaintiff) product, they also find me.
D's product and brand pops up with such glee; a sponsored link for consumers to see.

Now P gets really mad, call the lawyers, they do,
P's marketers scream loudly, "Go sue, yes, let's sue."
So do what they might and do what they may,
The lawyers do sue, in court we shall have our day! 

But wait just a moment, says the court to party P,
In order to win, two things prove for me,
Did D "use the mark in commerce" for all the world to see
And can you prove that buyers, from deception and confusion are free?

Well maybe I can and maybe I can't, says P not quite funny.
But Your Honor, you do know I've invested huge sums of money.
With branding and ads placed in time and in space, 
How can D be permitted to stand in my place? If a "mark" I invest in, an intellectual property right,
Surely you will protect my investment before calling it a night!

Not so, sayeth the court and much to Plaintiff's fright.
'Tis only deception we courts should set right.
The mark is intellectual and property we know,
But in "adword" competition, deception is as far as we go.
So P left the stage, bloodied but resolved to fight another day,
But so far and at this point, the Ninth Circuit says "no way."

 

The English Translation

Consider the case of Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts [No. 10-55840 (9th Cir. 3/8/11)]. Network Automation sells scheduling and management software under the brand name AutoMate. Its competitor, Advanced Systems Concepts, has a product called ActiveBatch. Now in 2009, Network Automation purchased keywords, including "ActiveBatch," from Google and Bing. When consumers searched for "ActiveBatch," the displayed results carried a sponsored link to Network Automation's website. Naturally, Advanced Systems demanded Network Automation stop using its name as an advertising keyword, claiming the use infringed its intellectual property rights. Network Automation refused and Advanced Systems sued.

In order to prevail, traditional trademark law says Advanced Systems must show that the mark was "used in commerce" and that consumers of these competitive products are likely to be confused. I won't bore you with the legal machinations leading up the ruling last week, but first the Ninth Circuit clearly joins the Second Circuit in stating the purchase of adwords is "use in commerce" for purposes of trademark law (the Second Circuit made a strong statement to that effect in Rescuecom v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 127 (2d Cir. 2009)). But what about the likelihood of confusion?

Here, Advanced Systems failed to convince the court that a "sophisticated" Internet consumer (the target consumer for this product) was likely to be confused by the keyword advertising strategy. "A sophisticated consumer of business software exercising a high degree of care is more likely to understand the mechanics of Internet search engines and the nature of sponsored links, whereas an un-savvy consumer exercising less care is more likely to be confused," the ruling states.

While intellectual property lawyers will themselves review the Ninth Circuit's distinction between the Sleekraft factors used to determine likelihood of confusion (named from AMF, Inc. v. Sleekraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)) and those used in the Brookfield case (Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)), you should know the Ninth Circuit felt the right factors to consider in competitive adword cases are: strength of the mark, evidence of actual confusion, type of goods, the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser, and the appearance of the ads and surrounding context on the screen displaying the results. 

But wait a minute. If the brand owner has invested significant time and money building brand recognition and a strong mark, shouldn't it be entitled to protection? Put another way, if a trademark is intellectual PROPERTY, don't I have the right to protect my asset and not give the alleged "infringer" a free ride on my investment? Well the Ninth Circuit seems to be saying "no, you don't." 

The court reasoned that trademark law focuses on protecting the consumer (and correspondingly the trademark owner) from the likelihood of confusion. Even though, over the past decade (inspired by cases like Brookfield), companies sought to emphasize the "property" aspect of their marks - protecting their investment and asset value – this court feels that is not the right approach. With this ruling, the Ninth Circuit appears to dismiss the property or asset "value" and investment argument, and makes a fairly clear statement that the rationale for protecting trademarks and the basis of permissible legal action still remains consumer deception and confusion. "Did D 'use the mark in commerce' for all the world to see, and can you prove that buyers, from deception and confusion are free."

For these judicial combatants, it means Network Automation can keep advertising on search engines using keywords that include the name of Advanced Systems and its products. Want to read the case for yourself? You can download your own personal copy and read the entire Ninth Circuit decision in this case right here: Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts. Need help? Contact me or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

On Friday, March 11, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission issued a press release announcing that, by a 5-0 vote, the Commissioners had approved a settlement with Twitter, stemming from charges that the social media and social networking site had deceived consumers by failing to protect personal information and potentially compromising their privacy. Last June, the FTC had charged Twitter with lapses in data security sufficiently serious that hackers were able to compromise administrative control, including both non-public user information and consumers’ private tweets. Hackers could send out fraudulent phony or spoofed tweets from virtually any user’s account.  The complaint originally filed against Twitter alleged that there were at least two instances where hackers were able to get control in early 2009, although it is possible there were other times as well. 

Twitter’s privacy settings ostensibly permit a user to identify tweets as private, and the FTC has consistently maintained that when a company posts a privacy statement or policy, aside from seeking to form a binding agreement between company and consumer regarding use of the site and the service, it also can make claims, announcing (i.e., advertising) the quality, integrity, reliability and security (among other things) of the features, functions and operations of the site that the public and each consumer using the service can rely upon. As the FTC noted in its press release, Twitter’s privacy policy says, "Twitter is very concerned about safeguarding the confidentiality of your personally identifiable information.  We employ administrative, physical, and electronic measures designed to protect your information from unauthorized access." From a regulatory perspective, this statement is viewed as constituting a ‘claim’ relating to the data protection measures Twitter utilizes and how the company treats customer information and activity.  

Although a settlement finalized in a consent agreement doesn’t amount to an admission of liability or a violation of any law or regulation, a final consent order does have the force of law against the company going forward. In this case, Twitter has agreed that for the next 20 years it will (a) not mislead consumers about the extent to which it protects the security, privacy and confidentiality of nonpublic consumer information, (b) respect and honor consumers’ privacy choices, and (c) not mislead consumers about what it does or how safe the mechanisms are that are designed to prevent unauthorized access.  Twitter also agreed that every two years for the next ten years, it will have an independent auditor review and evaluate Twitter’s information security program.

Need more information about how the FTC views terms of use, privacy statements and the ‘advertising’ claims that arise in social media?  Contact me or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) is holding its annual Law and Public Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. The digital revolution is well underway and changing the legal landscape every day at lightning speed.  Keeping up is becoming a nearly impossible task.  The Seventh Annual ANA Advertising Law and Public Policy Conference, co-chaired by Reed Smith partner and ANA General Counsel, Doug Wood, and the ANA’s Executive Vice President for Government Relations, Dan Jaffe, enters the battlefield by putting together a stellar faculty, including leading regulators, top practitioners, and serious critics, capped off by a session that puts it all together, led by a leading law professor.  The new world started with everything becoming an "e" – e-mail, e-commerce, e-this, e-that.  And then came wiki -- Hawaiian for speed.  Enter Wikipedia, wiki-news, wiki-this, wiki-that.  Welcome to the new world of wiki-lawyers.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits will be provided.  What are you waiting for?

When

Tuesday, March 15, 2011, at 7:30 a.m., through Wednesday, March 16, 2011, at 5:00 p.m.

Where

Park Hyatt Washington, D.C.
24th & M Streets, NW
Washington, D.C.

Get more information & REGISTER.

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

Wow! I thought I was cool playing "Going Mobile" by The Who (from their album – remember albums? - Who's Next, released in the United States August 14, 1971) to introduce my presentation about the legal implications of mobile advertising and mobile marketing (see Advertising on the Go - Mobile Marketing or Mobile Mayhem).

But I tip my hat to you Legal Bytes readers. You are on the ball. After blogging about the presentation, a friend and avid Legal Bytes reader reminded me of an article I wrote in 2005, published in the New York Law Journal Magazine, entitled "Transformed", in which I stated: "No longer tied to desks or offices located in centers of commerce and society, we carry our electronic tool boxes with us wherever we go. We have pagers, cell phones and wireless PDAs with names like Treo™ and the BlackBerry® . . . whose addictive qualities . . . (make us refer to them) as 'crack' berries! We carry them with us into restaurants, Broadway shows, buses and even bathrooms."

Wow, déjà vu all over again (with respect to Yogi Berra). Can you make it through the day without your BlackBerry or your Smartphone (we didn't call them that in 2005)? What's the first device you look at in the morning? What about before going to bed? Now I can even access Legal Bytes with a scan using my mobile. Wow!!

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from George Santayana, Spanish American philosopher (perhaps most remembered for his remark, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"). My personal favorite quote of his is, "We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the past; and we must respect the past, remembering that once it was all that was humanly possible." (The Philosophy of George Santayana, Northwestern University Press, 1940, p. 560). Oh, and if you actually like The Who, you can listen to Going Mobile:

 

 

Indeed. Déjà vu all over again!

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

February 9, 2011—one day before the Association of National Advertisers held its TV & Everything Video Forum—Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum had the privilege of presenting a pre-conference legal educational seminar at the New York offices of Reed Smith. Joe’s presentation, in PDF format, is available for your personal viewing right here: “Mobile Advertising, or I Know Where You Will Be Next Summer & Other Mobile Marketing Myths”.

You won’t be able to see the embedded videos – if you want to see those or any other presentations Joe and the Advertising Technology & Media practice has presented over the years, or if you want to arrange a customized presentation on any or all things ATM-related, contact Joe at jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com.

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

Hi. Do you like Legal Bytes? Have you told friends about Legal Bytes? Shared the link www.LegalBytes.com with at least 10 friends and colleagues? Have you told anyone about an article, a Useless But Compelling Fact or perhaps a Light Byte on Legal Bytes? Well, have you? I mean do you REALLY like Legal Bytes? If you do, please click the icon now:

What? Nothing happened? Well, that's right. Nothing happened. Sorry to disappoint you, but aside from the satisfaction of reading very exciting and timely postings; thoroughly enjoying the insights; admiring the wit and wisdom of the authors and editor; and, we hope, feeling enlightened and mildly entertained – this is, after all, a legal website, and you get nothing. We don't even publish comments or invite debates – that's not what Legal Bytes is about. Oh, and we don't use your name or email address. We just want you to read, and we thank you!

Not so any more on Facebook; and although I have been given absolutely nothing and have had no contact with any of the following companies about this or any other blog posting, here goes:

Have you been posting nice things on your friends' Facebook pages about your morning Starbucks coffee or perhaps checking in at Steamboat Springs, eager to hit the slopes? Have you felt compelled to comment to a Facebook friend that you just bought a new General Motors Cadillac and how great it now looks and drives? Has your Twitter feed, your LinkedIn comment, or your Digg dig shown up on Facebook, remarking about the lovely feel of Proctor and Gamble's Charmin bathroom tissue? Perhaps you have been browsing the official Facebook pages of MTV or Coca-Cola, or marveling at Kellogg's Cares? Like what you see? Well just click the "Like" icon at the top of those pages to let them and the world know.

Advertisers will now be able to take your nice posts, comments, remarks and words – those messages posted about brands – or your "like" clicks, and turn them into advertisements and "sponsored stories" for your friends to see. Although they won't be edited – not even the advertiser will be able to do that – postings on your wall that now show up on your "friends'" news feeds will now also show up on your friends' home page, right along with the other advertisements – more noticeable and conspicuous to be sure.

Although you won't be notified it's happening and you can't opt out, don't worry about someone stealing your words or preferences. The ad will have your name and profile photo, and will appear as an advertisement, along with the others, only now labeled as a "Sponsored Story." Going one better than "word of mouth," your posts, your check-ins and your likes will be as plain as the expression on your Facebook. According to what we have read, Facebook has stated that "A sponsored story never goes to somebody who's not one of your friends."

So far the griping has not been whether Facebook has the right, or even about keeping the ads limited to Facebook "friends" who already can see your postings. It's been about not being told that my "check-in," which enables me to connect with others while I'm on the move, is now going to be used to "promote" the places I check into – without my approval or without me necessarily knowing. If my neighborhood diner is going to get an endorsement (explicitly or implicitly), do I get royalties (or a complimentary egg-white omelet)? Listen up, Converse, I need a new pair of sneakers. 

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

On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Reed Smith’s own Emily Kirsch and Brad Newberg will be presenting a seminar entitled: Practical Implications of Recent Developments in Digital Media. The seminar will provide practical, real-world guidance to content owners and users, ISPs – actually, any enterprise with a website and content (that’s all of you, right?), speaking about the rapidly developing law of rights, responsibilities and liabilities arising from activity on the Internet:

• Recent developments in safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
• Copyright fair use and the Internet
• Keyword search advertising
• Morphing of trademark uses – what’s fair and what’s not – from metatags to invisible text

This CLE/CPD-eligible course (2.0 credits; Practice Skills and Knowledge) is available for attorneys (experienced and transitional) admitted in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California and Illinois, as well as in the UK. Those of you licensed in Delaware and Virginia, we can apply for you if needed – let us know. This course will only be presented LIVE in our New York office at 4 p.m., February 10; and since it will not be broadcast in either audio or video, you will need to be present to attend and get credit. 

Of course, a reception for the attendees will follow the course. How good is that – wisdom, credit and munchies! So if you are a client of the firm (or are willing to become one) and you want to register, don’t call me. Contact Anna Farhadian by email at afarhadian@reedsmith.com or by telephone at +1 212 702 1399. 

If you would prefer to register directly, just select this REGISTER link to be taken to the registration page. See you there!

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

In connection with an announcement by the Mobile Marketing Association, Joe Rosenbaum was interviewed by London-based, Rita Di Antonio, Journalist and Editor of DataGuidance (and Managing Editor of Data Protection Law & Policy), a publication of Cecile Park Publishing Ltd. You can read the article online “MMA to discuss 'comprehensive mobile privacy guidelines' during January forum”, or download your own copy in PDF Format.

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

Just a few moments ago, in their own words: "The Commerce Department Office of the Secretary, leveraging the expertise of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA"), the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), and the International Trade Administration ("ITA"), has created an Internet Policy Task Force to conduct a comprehensive review of the nexus between privacy policy, copyright, global free flow of information, cybersecurity, and innovation in the Internet economy." That introduction prefaced the release by the NTIA of its "Green Paper" (which you can download and read), Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework.  The Federal Register notice of this paper will seek public comments, noting that they will be due on or before January 28, 2011. 

While Legal Bytes and Reed Smith will digest the report more thoroughly and report to you in the days and weeks ahead, the report at first blush focuses on four major themes:

• Support for Fair Information Practices Principles (FIPPS), noting the need and importance of greater transparency, consumer control and data security
• Support for self regulation
• Creation of a national Privacy Policy Office to coordinate voluntary, enforceable, self-regulatory programs
• The need for greater harmonization of privacy laws and self regulation internationally

Stay tuned for further information and analysis, but if you want to be part of the conversation; if you feel you should have a voice in the discussion and are considering submitting comments; or if you simply want to better understand the implications, the interplay between this report and the recently released FTC report (see Protecting Consumer Privacy - FTC Issues Staff Report)posted on Legal Bytes December 2, 2010), please don't hesitate to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

Before we moved online to a blog format, from 1996 through the end of 2008, Legal Bytes was published as a one-page, monthly newsletter. But even then we had Useless But Compelling Facts, a feature our readers tell us they like! That said, the threads of continuity continue to haunt us. Witness the following:

In March 2004, the Useless But Compelling Fact question asked how “The Doors” got its name. The answer was that Jim Morrison decided to call his band The Doors after reading The Doors of Perception (1954), a novel written by Aldous Huxley about his use of hallucinogens. Huxley was made famous by his 1932 novel, Brave New World.

Although Legal Bytes was not yet a blog back in 2008, we have digitized and uploaded Legal Bytes material from as far back as 2004! Why is this relevant? Because in 2008, Legal Bytes published a short article entitled "The Doors of Perception Can Sometimes Lead to Harsh Reality," about a false advertising case involving the use of Jim Morrison’s name, likeness or other distinctive characteristics, in advertising by a concert band that included two former members of the original The Doors. Now it seems that Jim Morrison’s fans, followers, administrative agencies and regulators continue to seem intent on protecting and restoring Mr. Morrison’s good name.

There is a joke that goes something like, “if you remember the 1960s, you probably weren’t there.” For those of you who do recall, you will remember Mr. Morrison was convicted of profanity and indecent exposure stemming from allegations he exposed himself during a concert at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami in 1969. At the time of his trial, other band members insisted he never actually exposed himself, but fans offered conflicting versions of what happened and he was ultimately convicted. That conviction was being appealed by Mr. Morrison at the time of his death in Paris in 1971.

Well a few days ago—more than 40 years from his conviction and at the request of outgoing Florida Governor Charlie Crist—the Clemency Board in Florida unanimously voted to pardon Mr. Morrison (posthumously) for his conviction. Rest in peace.

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

First issued in 1992 and revised in 1998, the Federal Trade Commission three years ago (2007) began an extensive review of its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, also known as the "Green Guides," focusing mainly on the dividing line between deceptive and non-deceptive speech. Noting the increasing use of "greenwashing" – the use of unsubstantiated environmental claims in advertising – the FTC is seeking to spell out the specific environmental claims that advertisers can and cannot make about their products and services. After hearings, surveys and feedback, the FTC recently formulated draft revisions to the Green Guides, publishing them for public comment.

Our own John P. Feldman prepared an insightful analysis of the draft revision and what it may mean if it is ultimately adopted by the FTC in its current form. That analysis, originally prepared as a presentation to lawyers, and advertising and marketing professionals, has now been recast into a narrative discussion; and thanks to the assistance of Carolyn Boyle and the editorial staff at the International Law Office, you can read all about it on the International Law Office website. The article, published as the Revised Green Guides: A Balanced Approach to Environmental Claims in Advertising, represents a terrific overview of the FTC's current thinking in this area, and it is a must read for any legal, regulatory, advertising and marketing professional who does "green" marketing and advertising or who may be responsible for it. 

If you need help, need more information, or need knowledgeable counsel and representation in this important area of law and regulation – either now or increasingly in the future – please don't hesitate to contact John P. Feldman directly, or me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

This post was written by Paul Bond, Chris Cwalina, Amy Mushahwar and Fred Lah.

The FTC just released its long-awaited Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change. This preliminary staff report proposes a major change in U.S. privacy law. The FTC is accepting comments on this report until January 31, 2011, and if you could be affected by these changes and would like to submit comments, or if you are considering submitting comments to the report (or perhaps you aren't sure if you should), Reed Smith can help. While we are still reviewing the 123-page report in depth, we wanted to share a few thoughts from an initial reading.

The report proposes a major change in the framework of U.S. privacy law, stating bluntly: "Industry must do better." The report notes, among other things:

• Notice-and-consent doesn't work. People don't read or understand privacy notices as now written. The Commission's view is that privacy policies have become "long" and "incomprehensible."
• Waiting for harm to consumers isn't an effective way to enforce privacy norms. Harm has traditionally meant economic or physical harm. Privacy harms include reputational harms and even the emotional harm of having one's information "out there," or "fear of being monitored." The new framework must address and allay these anxieties; however, there is some disagreement among the Commissioners. Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, in his concurrence, notes "the Commission could overstep its bounds" if it were to begin analyzing these more intangible harms when assessing consumer injury.
• Industry self-regulation is too little, too late, and has failed to provide adequate and meaningful protection.

The report challenges a number of privacy and security assumptions. The report:

• Casts severe doubt on claims that de-identified information need not be protected, citing multiple instances and methods by which personally identifiable information (PII) can be culled from "non-name" information (e.g., IP addresses, other unique identifiers). The distinction between PII and non-PII is, the report says, "of decreasing relevance." Consequently, the scope of the report is very broad and applies to "all commercial entities that collect or use consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer or other device."
• Purports to apply in the online and offline world, and not only to companies that work directly with consumers.
• Suggests that consumers must be made aware of and consent to onward transfers of information to non-affiliates no matter what the industry, universalizing the consumer notice requirements that previously only applied to certain highly regulated industries (e.g., telecommunications, education, health care, financial services), or certain types of sensitive data (e.g., credit data, bank accounts, medical records).
• Distinguishes between "commonly accepted data practices" and all other data practices. Borrowing from GLBA and HIPAA, using data to aid law enforcement, or in response to judicial process or to prevent fraud, would not require notice to or consent of consumers, but ALL other data practices (e.g., behavioral advertising and deep packet inspection that are explicitly named as not commonly accepted data practices) would require notice and consent in a form easy to read and understand, ideally provided to the consumer when the consumer enters his or her personal data. The report suggests opt-in consent be obtained prior to implementing any material changes to company policy that would apply to data collected under a prior privacy policy.
• Suggests that to promote a free and competitive market, the privacy practices of companies need to be more transparent to consumers, and that consumers be given "reasonable access" to their data.
• Notes that appropriate data-retention periods should be a legal requirement. The report sites geolocation data as especially important to phase out.
• Endorses a "Do Not Track" mechanism, recognizing that such a mechanism would be far more complex than the National Do Not Call registry. The FTC supports either legislation or self-regulatory efforts to develop a system whereby a consumer could opt not to be "tracked." The FTC has expressed a distinction between "tracking" and "interest-based" advertising. And, in later discussions regarding the report, the FTC has stated that it will treat first-party advertising more favorably than third-party ad servers. The FTC has not decided on the technical mechanism for creating such a registry, but it recognizes a browser-based solution – similar to the privacy plug-in on the Firefox browser or incognito mode in Google Chrome. The FTC has not indicated if opt-in or opt-out would be the default browser setting for any browser privacy technology deployed.

So what should businesses do?

First, companies should carefully review the report and all the questions made open for public comment. These are listed in Appendix A to the report, but additional questions are posed in the Commissioner dissent statements.

Second, companies should strongly consider commenting on the report. In our experience, the FTC will listen and often address business concerns. But you must be heard. Trade associations are a good place to start, but individual company voices are important, especially if you have unique issues that should be addressed.

Third, now is a good time for you to pull back and consider your privacy policies, practices and programs, and the extent to which privacy is incorporated into your everyday business practices. The report suggests every company should adopt "privacy by design," "building privacy protections into everyday business practices," "assigning personnel to oversee privacy issues, training employees on privacy issues, and conducting privacy reviews when developing new products and services."

You can read and obtain a copy of the FTC's full report here. 

If you need help, want more information, want to comment, or simply require some guidance – whether counsel or representation – in an area that is of critical importance to businesses and consumers, please don’t hesitate to contact Paul Bond, Chris Cwalina, Amy Mushahwar, Fred Lah or me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

In case you missed Reed Smith’s Columbus Day seminar, presented by Reed Smith partner Marina Palomba, you can read and download a copy of the presentation right here: "A Global View on Advertising Law from the Other Side of the Pond." The presentation covered four main areas: green claims, on-line behavioural and location-based advertising, the extension of self regulation of advertising to promotional messages on the Internet, and ambush marketing and the 2012 Olympics. Need to know more? Want to appreciate how regulation and the legal framework apply to any or all of these areas in your business? Feel free to contact Marina Palomba directly or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you regularly work.

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

It's no longer simply a matter of saying it isn't easy BEING green, as Kermit the Frog has done for decades; now it isn't easy SAYING you are "green" – the latest buzzword denoting environmentally friendly advertising: Green Marketing. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is in the process of revising its Green Marketing Guidelines and has published proposed rules for public comment. 

John P. Feldman in our Washington, D.C., office, has experience and a strong and insightful understanding of the Green Guidelines, and he has prepared an analysis of where we are and where the FTC thinks we should be going – subject to an opportunity for you to file comments. 

So here is the bottom line. John's analysis, The FTC's Green Guidelines, is now available for your review. You can download your own copy through the link as well. In addition, the comment period is soon closing, so if you are concerned about anything in the proposed revised Green Guidelines, now would be a good time to wake up and smell the recyclable coffee and get your comments to the FTC. Not sure what the guidelines mean to you? Not sure how best to comment? Well that's where John's skill and experience come in – feel free to contact John P. Feldman (jfeldman@reedsmith.com) directly and he will be glad to help assess your needs and prepare comments for filing should you wish to do so. 

Even if you opt not to participate in the public regulatory dialogue, if you advertise, market or even think about touting how environmentally friendly you, your products or your services are – better call John! Of course, if you are already a client of Reed Smith, feel free to contact me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum (jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com), or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work, and we'll make sure you get to John and get the assistance you need.

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

If you haven’t already, please register for "A Global View on Advertising Law from the Other Side of the Pond" presented by Reed Smith partner Marina Palomba with an introduction from Doug Wood. Don’t miss this exciting and timely presentation. Follow this link to obtain more information and register: http://guest.cvent.com/d/vdqvn3/4W.

You won’t want to lose the opportunity to gain valuable insights; besides, if the economy continues to deflate the U.S. dollar and inflate the value of British Pound Sterling, Marina has intimated that the United Kingdom may attempt to simply buy the United States and make it a colony again.

Hope to see you at the seminar.

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

Just more than a year ago, a Legal Bytes post entitled "Gift Cards: The Chart is Free. It's Our Experience You Pay For." gave our readers and visitors a handy chart that listed and briefly summarized the key legal requirements applicable to Gift Cards - those 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. Now those of you with gift card programs - or who are thinking about gift card programs - already know there are various state laws and regulations that require certain disclosures, and impose certain restrictions on expiration dates and on the imposition of inactivity fees, not to mention the applicability of escheat and abandoned property laws that may apply on a state-by-state basis.

If you have been coming back to Legal Bytes to keep up with this and other developments in the law of Advertising Technology & Media ("ATM"), you also know that Keri Bruce in Reed Smith's ATM practice group posted a report entitled Gift Cards Tag Along with Credit Card Legislation, noting that federal legislative and regulatory requirements will soon apply to gift cards.

Well, with one legislative delay granted by Congress with respect to certain requirements that apply to gift cards issued before April 1, 2010, the law and corresponding regulations have just now gone into effect.  Time to update the chart for you loyal readers and to entice new visitors to subscribe via email or RSS Feed to keep up-to-date. As before, the US Gift Card Statutory Chart (Updated) is provided at no cost or obligation. As we have said previously, it's our experience and skill you pay for, not our ongoing research services in areas where we already remain current for a wide variety of clients.

First, the obligatory disclaimers. No chart can be comprehensive or substitute for actually knowing the statutes and regulations. 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, I do not wish to trivialize or minimize its value - it represents the distillation of years and hours of work and effort - a special thanks to Keri Bruce for helping to update it.  

We point out, as we did previously, that the chart (with one new and notable exception - keep reading) doesn't cover state escheat, abandoned or unclaimed property laws that may apply to the "breakage" remaining on unused gift cards. It also does not cover the various requirements and obligations applicable to money transmitters under state law. But it does cover disclosure requirements and expiration date restrictions, as well as various exclusions and exemptions; and, of course, it provides citations to the relevant laws in each jurisdiction. Now about that new and notable exception: the chart does make reference to a recent law enacted in New Jersey and applicable to abandoned property (escheat), which effectively alters the tenor and scope of the New Jersey gift card law. Because of the complexity, Legal Bytes has created a separate post that describes that law in greater detail (see, Gift Cards in New Jersey: It's Complicated). 

The chart provides a handy citation and reference tool for the various gift card and gift certificate laws in the 50 states in the United States and the District of Columbia, and now includes a description of the new federal U.S. requirements that have just gone into effect as a result of the Credit Card Act of 2009. In addition, if you have an interest in this area, you really should go back and read (or re-read) the prior Legal Bytes' posting since it provides valuable context as online loyalty and promotional programs have proliferated, and as gift and payment instruments are increasingly being scrutinized by regulators and legislators and dealt with by the courts. As this update evidences, the law is dynamically changing, evolving and being re-configured to reflect our inter-connected, digital information age. Whether online or offline, this is a sophisticated regulated category of financial payment services and products; in a complex retail, promotional, loyalty-reward consumer environment; with a large number of possible variations; offered and used across multiple jurisdictions; governed by an even larger number of evolving state (and now federal) laws and regulations - and we haven't even scratched the surface internationally.

So if you are wondering why we give the chart away for free - don't wonder too long. If you are in this business and you need help from lawyers who know this area and can provide experienced, practical counsel, contact Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum or Keri Bruce, or your favorite Reed Smith lawyer, all of whom will be happy to help.

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

As we mention in our post entitled Gift Cards: The Updated Chart is Still Free, a  New Jersey Bill (A3002), effective July 1, 2010, has now amended and expanded New Jersey's Unclaimed Property Act (the "Act") to apply to stored value cards.  But don't be lulled into a false sense of security. The Act, as amended, defines "stored value card" as any "record that evidences a promise, made for monetary or other consideration, by the issuer or seller of the record that the owner of the record will be provided, solely or a combination of, merchandise, services, or cash in the value shown in the record, which is pre-funded and the value of which is reduced upon each redemption.  The term 'stored value card' includes, but is not limited to the following items: paper gift certificates, records that contain a microprocessor chip, magnetic stripe or other means for the storage of information, gift cards, electronic gift cards, rebate cards, stored-value cards or certificates, store cards, and similar records or cards."

As it relates to unclaimed property and as amended, the Act includes a presumption of abandonment after two years of inactivity and a presumption that if the issuer does not have the address of the purchaser, the address is deemed to be New Jersey, if the card was purchased in New Jersey.  We leave to your assessment and future court battles whether this violates the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674 (1965), which rejected a transactional priority rule for reporting unclaimed property.

What is curious about the amended Act is that, although it is an "unclaimed property" statute, it now contains significant stored value card (e.g., gift card) provisions.  The Act prohibits imposition of dormancy fees and, presented here in simplified summary form, exempts stored value cards issued: (i) under a promotional, loyalty or charitable program for which no monetary or other consideration has been tendered; (ii) by an issuer (or "family" of issuers) that sold stored value cards with an aggregate face value in the previous year of $250,000 or less; and (iii) any business or class of businesses that the State Treasurer decides to exempt (see section 5(f) of AB 3002).

But what is most perplexing about the amended Act is that it cross-references New Jersey's current Gift Card Law (see New Jersey Attorney General - Gift Cards & Gift Certificates), and provides that only a stored value card that is exempt from the Unclaimed Property Act shall be considered a gift card or gift certificate for purposes of the Gift Card Law.  Now if you want the analysis of what the original Gift Card Act covers and how the "exemption" essentially neuters much of that definition, replacing it with the new "stored value" reference - well you are going to have to call Keri Bruce or me.  Bottom line, the amended Act effectively and significantly alters the definition of a gift card and gift certificate under New Jersey law.

More significantly, this inter-relationship between New Jersey's amended Unclaimed Property Act and its Gift Card Law demonstrates the complexity of developing a legally compliant gift card and gift certificate program.  Now, in the United States at least, an issuer (and sometimes the seller) must comply with the U.S. Federal Credit Card Act of 2009; the gift card and gift certificate laws on the state level; the applicable escheat, abandoned or unclaimed property laws; and an increasingly complex and often perplexing overlap between one or more of these statutes, sometimes, as is the case in New Jersey, including complexities within the same state.

Need help?  Feel free to contact Keri Bruce or Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you regularly work.  We are all happy to help.

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

On September 8, 2010, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. (ET), Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum will be presenting on social media for a web cast entitled "What Every Litigant Should Know About Social Media Channels: Their Impact on Discovery and at Trial." 

This program will address social media channels from several key perspectives for litigants: (1) understanding what social media channels are and what information they contain; (2) how social media channels figure in the discovery process, as to the preservation, collection and production of the information they contain; (3) what courts have held regarding the admissibility of evidence from social media sites at trial; and (4) what types of policies and procedures organizations should adopt around social media tools. As part of the overall presentation, Joe's discussion will center around understanding the distinctions that online social media present, looking at the issues of social media in the judicial process (e.g., can judges have "friends"?), and corporate policies designed to guide employees and prevent litigation disasters before they occur.

The Knowledge Congress is producing the event and Reed Smith has secured a special discount of $50 off the registration fee for this program. Click to Register and enter code mith6874 for your discount.

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

Following up on the April 30th Legal Bytes posting Product Placement in the UK, our Reed Smith sister publication, ReACTS, has posted a note entitled Product Placement Ofcom Consultation regarding today’s opening, by Ofcom, of two consultations regarding changes to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (one for television and one for radio) to allow for product placement in UK television programming.

Should you wish more information or need assistance in providing comments in response to the consultations – which close September 17, 2010 – just follow the link to the article above, and help is an email or phone contact away. Of course, any Reed Smith attorney with whom you work or I stand ready to assist or make the necessary introductions at any time. 

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

Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum was quoted in a recent article in the online version of Financier Worldwide entitled, "US Entertainment & Media Sector – Moving With The Times". This article will also be published in the forthcoming hard-copy issue of Financier Worldwide magazine. Financier Worldwide is a leading publisher of news and analysis on the global corporate finance marketplace, recognized as a leading source of intelligence to the corporate deal-making community.

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

This post was written by Christopher Hackford, Marina Palomba, and Huw Morris.

The Audiovisual Media Services (Product Placement) Regulations came into effect in the UK 16 April 2010. Under the Regulations, product placement will now be permitted in television programmes made in the UK, although those featuring product placement will not be permitted until Ofcom has amended the Broadcasting Code, which may not be until sometime in autumn 2010.

“Product placement” is defined in the UK Regulations as the inclusion in a programme of, or the reference to, a product, service or trademark, where the inclusion is for a commercial purpose, has been paid for (by way of cash or other valuable consideration), and does not amount to prop placement (i.e., inclusion of a product that has no significant value and that was not included because of a payment or valuable consideration).

There are four types of programmes in which product placement is permitted: (i) films made for cinema; (ii) films or series made for television or on-demand services; (iii) sports programmes; and (iv) light entertainment programmes. No children’s programmes may carry product placements—programmes primarily aimed at viewers under 16. News programmes fall outside these permitted types, and UK-made religious, consumer affairs or current affairs programmes are not permitted to include product placement. There is also some catch-all wording to prevent programmes for which product placement is “unsuitable”—an undefined term. As for the BBC, it is still bound by its Royal Agreement and is prohibited from making or commissioning programmes that carry product placement, but programmes acquired from third parties and those made by BBC Worldwide will be subject to the new rules.

The new Regulations prohibit product placements of cigarettes, tobacco products or prescription-only medicines, as well as alcoholic drinks, if the programme is aimed at an under-18 demographic or encourages immoderate drinking. Not content, the UK government has expanded the list where the programmes are UK-produced or commissioned-television, or on-demand programmes (excluding films made for cinema), to also include smokeless cigarettes and smoking accessories; medicines (i.e., over-the-counter as well as prescription); any alcoholic drinks; infant and follow-on formula; food or drink high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS); and gambling services. These were prohibited by the UK government to protect the health and welfare of viewers, especially children, but the result of this is that a vast swathe of potential advertisers who may have considered paying to place their products in programmes are now unable to do so.

The Regulations also fail to deal with the difference between product placement and brand placement. Can McDonalds, for instance, pay to have its name referred to (e.g., “Let’s all go to McDonald’s”) or would this be regarded as a promotion of an HFSS product.

There are also significant conditions that apply under the regulations. For example, the product placement must not influence content or scheduling to affect editorial independence; there must be no direct encouragement to purchase or rent the products; the programme must not give undue influence to the products; no subliminal advertising techniques can be used; and the way the product is included in the programme is not socially irresponsible and does not harm children. The point about “socially irresponsible” means it cannot “prejudice human dignity,” promote discrimination, encourage behaviour prejudicial to health, safety or protection of the environment, cause physical or moral detriment to children under 18, exploit children’s trust in parents, or show children in a dangerous situations.

As you may appreciate if you're watching the advertising marketplace in the UK, there is no indication that advertisers will increase marketing budgets to take advantage of new rules, rather than changing their priorities within existing budgets. In addition, parties cannot enter into contracts stating how, how often, when or whether the product is even placed into a programme, because this is contrary to the requirements for editorial independence. The consequence may well be that advertisers may be reluctant to part with their funds if they have absolutely no control or influence over the way their product is portrayed or used in a programme, or indeed, whether it ends up being used at all.

If you want to keep updated on product placement developments in the UK, or if you need help in understanding how the new UK product-placement regulations may affect you, contact Christopher Hackford directly or, of course, you can always call me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

A few days ago (April 21, 2010), Joe Rosenbaum made a presentation to the Entertainment & Media Law Committee of the eMIPS Section of the New York County Lawyers Association. The presentation described the legal issues and implications arising from the tension between consumer privacy and online and digital behavioral marketing—a hot topic and an area that continues to spark debate and continues to evolve, as technology persists in being an enabler of greater functionality. You can view or download a .PDF of the presentation right here: Privacy Issues in Online & Wireless Advertising & Entertainment: Brave New World or 1984?

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

An article, written by Marina Palomba, former Legal Director of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, and now a partner in the London office of Reed Smith focusing on advertising law and regulation, has just been published and makes both informative and great reading. First published in Media Lawyer April 13, 2010, the article reviews just how far political ads can go. Read the entire article entitled, Political Advertising – Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful?, and if you need legal guidance or representation, don’t hesitate to contact Marina Palomba in our London office.

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

Over five years ago, in early 2004, luxury fashion designer Louis Vuitton sued Google in connection with the sale of search-related advertising.  You will recall the company behind the Louis Vuitton brands and many others (LVMH Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton S.A., usually shortened to LVMH) has been very aggressive in policing and protecting its marks on eBay and other Internet sites.  The Paris District Court held that Google was engaged in trademark infringement, unfair competition and misleading advertising.  The Paris Court of Appeals subsequently ordered Google (and its French subsidiary) to pay €300,000 in damages. When those rulings were announced, a spokesperson for Louis Vuitton, praising the Court’s decision, said, "It was absolutely unthinkable that a company like Google be authorized, in the scope of its advertising business, to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to Web sites selling counterfeits."  The remarks went on to state, "This milestone ruling grants protection for the first time to both consumers and brand owners” adding that Louis Vuitton believed the Court’s finding meant that Google's services were “misleading advertising services."  

Google appealed, and today the European Court of Justice (ECJ) released its ruling on appeal of that decision.  For you purists in the audience, procedurally within the ECJ, the decision is one in respect of the Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, in the proceedings captioned Google France SARL, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08), Google France SARL v. Viaticum SA, Luteciel SARL (C-237/08), and Google France SARL v. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger SARL (C-238/08).

The case essentially asks whether Internet search providers can be liable for trademark infringement when selling ‘keywords’ that are based upon the trademarks of another.  The ECJ ruling doesn’t completely immunize or exonerate Google, nor does it leave advertisers defenseless either, but it does in effect give the green light to Google and other search providers to continue to offer keywords to bidders; there had been concern in Europe that a negative judgment from the ECJ would have brought all such services to a halt.  The decision takes a now familiar, “let’s examine if you do more than just sell the trademark as a keyword at the request of the advertiser” approach.

So, if all an Internet search company such as Google is doing is selling keywords, the decision appears to allow Google to do so, despite a showing of confusion by consumers.  But – as those of you advertisers and marketing professionals who are tuned in to AdWords’ algorithmically driven ‘suggestions’ will know – Google’s program actually suggests keywords derived from previous selections. So Google’s AdWords code might suggest “British Airways” as related to “Virgin Atlantic” or “Ryanair” or, as in this case, "imitation” or “fake” coupled with “handbags” as a keyword related to "Louis Vuitton.” Not merely passively selling an existing word or mark and more actively engaging in the ‘suggestion’ process, in the Court’s view, consequently attaches liability.

By analogy, one can rationalize such a decision with similar rulings in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) or more directly under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  In the case of the DMCA, if one has no notice of infringement and innocently publishes infringing content, until knowledge is shown – by ‘take down’ notice or otherwise – a passive distributor would generally not be held liable for intellectual property infringement.  Similarly, the CDA distinguishes between those who participate in the content creation process and those who merely distribute (the traditional news media distinction between editor/publishers and newsstand/distributors).

Under the instant ruling by the ECJ, although simply purchasing a keyword would not seem to constitute a per se legal violation in the EU, some rather arcane wording by the ECJ seems to suggest that advertisers (not necessarily the search provider) could now be held liable for trademark infringement resulting from their keyword purchase if their advertising can be shown to be confusing to consumers.  Thus, courts in the EU will now be examining both the appearance of the advertising and its demonstrable or likely effect on consumers.  One of our Associates, Drew Boortz, who follows these developments, notes that we are not aware of any U.S. case that has delved this deeply into keyword sales.  While there are trademark and advertising cases that deal with “use in commerce,” the eight or nine recent cases against Google directly involving keywords are yet to come up for trial (e.g., Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., U.S. federal complaint filed on July 10, 2009 in the Eastern District of Virginia; scheduled for trial in May).

Chris Hackford in our London office notes that trademark owners will no doubt be a little disgruntled after this ECJ judgment, as they will have to continue to bid on their own registered trademarks in order to ensure that they remain at the top of the listings.

If you want to form your own view of the ECJ decision, you can read it right here: Louis Vuitton v. Google; or you can call Reed Smith for help.  Our offices in Paris, as well as London, Munich and Piraeus in the EU, stand ready to assist; and, of course, you can contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, in New York; Chris Hackford in London; Drew Boortz in our Washington, D.C. office; or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

This post was written by Christopher Hackford.

After an extensive year-long review, on March 16, 2010, the Committee of Advertising Practice in the United Kingdom announced the launch of new Advertising Codes for both broadcast and non-broadcast media, covering television standards, television scheduling, radio and text services.

Much remains nearly the same, but there are some notable new rules, including rules intended to offer greater protection for children, rules to prevent exaggerated environmental claims, and a new section dedicated to lotteries and promotions.

That said, here are two examples of some rules that have actually been relaxed. One: charities are now allowed to make comparisons with each other (competitive advertising fighting for your British Pound Sterling). Two: advertisers in the UK are now permitted to advertise condoms on television before 10:00 pm on television. Some of this may reflect the increasing contention among advertisers for share of wallet from consumers.

The new Codes did not deal with some contentious areas of British advertising, but to find out more, you will either have to plod through the Advertising Code yourself, or you could read the Reed Smith Advertising Technology & Media Alert, New Advertising Codes Launched, written by our ATM colleagues in the UK.

So, if you need help understanding the new Advertising Codes, or you want to hear from the authors of the alert and experts in this area, feel free to contact Marina Palomba, Christopher Hackford or Huw Morris directly. Of course, you can always contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

Todd Davis, the CEO of LifeLock is not the first CEO to appear in advertising, but was probably the first to prominently display his U.S. Social Security Number in full-page ads in major newspapers and billboards across the country. Although these ads disappeared a while ago, the action brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorneys General of 35 states of the United States, has now resulted in a settlement valued at $11 million. FYI, the states involved were: Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. The settlement resolves claims that LifeLock’s advertising was deceptive and misleading and misrepresented the types of services consumers could expect if they become victims of identity theft and their personal information was compromised.

While LifeLock does provide some measure of identity-theft protection, it was apparently not as robust and comprehensive as the advertising might lead a consumer to believe (personal information would be “useless to a criminal”). As a result of the action, not only has LifeLock promised to make changes (or has already made changes) to address the FTC complaint - in its business practices as well as its advertising - but the complaint also named CEO Davis and his co-founder Robert J. Maynard, Jr., who both will be barred from making the same misrepresentations as LifeLock. The $11 million received from LifeLock will provide refunds to consumers who signed up for the service. Information about eligibility and how the redress program will work can be obtained directly from the FTC - LifeLock Redress Program.

FTC Chairman Leibowitz stated: “Consumers received far less protection than they were promised," noting further that LifeLock’s service was ineffective against identity theft involving existing credit cards or bank accounts. Despite the advertised claims, according to the FTC, LifeLock often did not encrypt data in storage or transmission, didn’t install any antivirus protection software on computers used by employees, and failed to even require strong password protection for employees’ access to systems and files.

The documents were filed by the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and you can obtain a full copy of the original Complaint and the Stipulated Final Judgments against LifeLock, Davis and Maynard, right here: Federal Trade Commission v. LifeLock.

The Advertising Technology & Media law practice has lawyers and the resources of Reed Smith’s litigation and regulatory enforcement team to help clients seeking to prevent legal and regulatory problems and, if necessary, defend you if they arise. We have a team of data security and identity-theft lawyers with hands-on experience who know how to respond if a data breach occurs and can counsel you in complying with federal and state requirements. Need to know more? Call Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers at Reed Smith with whom you work - and, by the way, don’t give out your Social Security Number.

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

Chapter Authors

United States

Douglas J. Wood, Partner – dwood@reedsmith.com
Stacy K. Marcus, Associate – smarcus@reedsmith.com
Anthony S. Traymore, Associate – atraymore@reedsmith.com

United Kingdom

Marina Palomba, Partner – mpalomba@reedsmith.com

Germany

Stephan K. Rippert, Partner – srippert@reedsmith.com
Katharina Weimer, Associate – kweimer@reedsmith.com

Introduction

This chapter looks at the relationship between social media and advertising and marketing practices, and how to protect brands.

As an emerging technology with nearly limitless boundaries and possibilities, social media gives consumers unprecedented engagement with a brand. Consumers are empowered. However, this brings with it risks as well as gains. Consumers aren’t just buying a product or service online, they are discussing, reviewing, endorsing, lampooning, comparing and parodying companies and their brands. They aren’t simply being targeted for advertising; in many cases, they are participants in the creation and distribution of advertising. Companies can better enable, influence, monitor, react to and, hopefully, monetise the consumer conversations taking place in social media, and can better engage and interact with the consumer directly with their brands—but it’s critical to understand and navigate the legal minefields that are both dynamic and evolving as the media evolves.

Why are advertisers and marketing professionals drawn to social media? Because more than 1.8 billion people use the Internet every day[1], and, according to Nielsen, consumer activity on social networking and blogging sites accounted for 17 percent of all time on the Internet in August 2009, up from 6 percent the previous year.[2] The Internet audience is larger than any media audience in history, and it is growing every day. It’s those eyeballs that marketers want.

In the UK alone, spending on online advertising grew by almost 5 percent in the first six months of 2009, while television spending fell by 16 percent (see IAB UK News, “Internet advertising spend grows by 4.6 per cent”). It was also reported that UK online advertising spend overtook TV advertising spend for the first time.[3] Almost two-thirds of businesses say they intend to spend more on onsite social media, while 64 percent are looking to boost search engine optimisation efforts and 56 percent want to invest more in mobile marketing. Looking forward, new global research by Econsultancy and ExactTarget has revealed that 66 percent of company marketers in the UK intend to spend more on Internet advertising this year compared with 2009. Total Internet advertising spending will surpass £3.5 billion in the UK this year, according to a forecast from eMarketer.

Morgan Stewart, director of research and strategy at ExactTarget, comments: “The shift from offline to online is in full swing as marketers look to measure direct increases in top line sales, site traffic and improve overall marketing return on investment.”

In the United States, Nielsen estimates that ad spending on social networking and blogging sites grew 119 percent, from an estimated $49 million in August 2008 to $108 million in August 2009.[4] Expressed as a percentage of total U.S. online ad spend, ad expenditures on social networking sites climbed from 7 percent in August 2008 to 15 percent in September 2009.[5] In February 2010, the COO of Kellogg’s confirmed that since 2007, the company had tripled its social media spending.[6] Where are companies spending these dollars? The possibilities are numerous.

National authors begin by examining the use of social media and the risks and gains involved. Branded channels, gadgets, widgets, promotions such as sweepstakes and contests within and even across social media platforms, are a few of the ways companies are using social media to increase brand awareness. Even companies that are not actively using social media platforms to engage consumers must monitor social media outlets for comments made about the company or its brands. Social media cannot be ignored, and this section explores the legal implications of marketing in this manner.

Next, we look at the use of social media to foster brand engagement and interaction. Many companies are moving beyond simply having a page on Facebook, MySpace or YouTube, and are encouraging consumers to interact with their brand. Companies are using social media to provide customer service and get product reviews. Marketers seek to engage the consumer in developing user-generated content (“UGC”) around their brands for advertising, and actively solicit their social networks to create buzz, viral and word-of-mouth advertising campaigns. Some even employ “street teams” of teenagers who plug and promote a brand, movie or music artist in return for relatively small rewards. Who controls and retains liability for the statements made and content provided in the social media universe? Who owns the content? Will brand owners lose control of their brands?

Finally, we explore the impact of social media on talent rights and compensation. As discussed above, increasingly, ad spend is moving online. Along with this shift, the line between “content” and “advertising” has become blurred. Celluloid is being replaced by digital files and projectors by flat screens and monitors. What once aired only on television is now being moved over to the Internet by content owners and advertisers, or is going viral thanks almost entirely to consumers with a little encouragement from advertisers. We will examine how this shift impacts talent compensation and will discuss its application to the Screen Actors Guild (“SAG”) and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (“AFTRA”) commercials contracts.

In our review, we have covered advertising regulation in the United States, the UK and Germany. Note that the UK has a largely self-regulatory environment. This self-regulation comes in the form of codes of practice that are designed to protect consumers and create a level playing field for advertisers. The codes are the responsibility of two industry committees—the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), and are independently administered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Online advertising, including via social networking and the techniques referred to in this chapter, fall under the remit of the CAP Code (which is explained in more detail in Chapter 2).

Continue Reading...

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

Online ratings got you perplexed? Seems like someone forgot to put "user ratings" on the list of reality shows. Well maybe, just maybe, those user ratings aren’t really "user" or "ratings" at all. What should you consider?

Well, on October 23, 2009, Joe Rosenbaum was interviewed by Sally Herships for Marketplace Money, a regular feature of Public Radio. If you missed it on the air, you can now listen to the audio, read a transcript of the interview, download an MP3, or subscribe to the podcast, by checking out the interview at: "Don't let online reviews fake you out."

Legal implications abound—for website operators and ratings' services that enable users to post reviews and content, as well as for anyone posting fake reviews or failing to disclose a material connection to the advertiser, its brands or products. So go listen and then come back if and when you need legal support. Contact Joe Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

Just catching up with continuing efforts to educate the legal community on the implications of digital behavioral advertising and the importance of the industry self-regulatory efforts, as well as the dangers of legislation and regulation arising from insufficient or inaccurate information. In November of last year, Cyberspace Lawyer [Volume 14, Issue 10; November 2009], published "Advertising Industry Collaboration Releases Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles," written by Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

The article follows the release, by the major advertising industry associations, of Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising, and Legal Bytes had numerous blog postings summarizing the individual principles, as well as an overview (see Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principle No. 7: Accountability that will link you to the others; or simply search "social media" in the keyword search box in the navigation column on the left side of the web page). The Cyberspace Lawyer article consolidates and integrates these summaries into a single article that you can read in that issue, or you can download the article here: "Advertising Industry Collaboration Releases Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles" [PDF].

Joe Rosenbaum, who edits and publishes Legal Bytes, is general counsel of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), one of the major industry associations that participated in the development and release of the actual principles. Behavioral advertising can be viewed as another aspect of the social media phenomenon sweeping the digital world, and if you want (or need) to know more, you should know that Reed Smith's Advertising Technology & Media Law Group can help with integrated experience and legal skills, both nationally and internationally. Let us know if we can help you.

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

On February 18, 2010, the International Law Office (ILO) published an article authored by Gregor Pryor and Sachin Premnath in the London office of Reed Smith, and Joe Rosenbaum in New York. It discusses the benefits and pitfalls of social media, and raises issues and concerns applicable to global companies—not just those on either side of the pond!

The article was derived from one published in Legal Week, and you can download your own PDF copy of “Commercial risks and rewards of the social media phenomenon” right here.

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

If you aren’t careful, social media can hurt in the workplace, too. While recruiters, college and university admissions counselors, and many others have used profiles, postings, YouTube videos, and other social media platforms to gather information about candidates and prospects—corporations that are now increasingly monitoring their own presence, mentions, and brands in social media are discovering that employees—at work and outside the workplace—can be outstanding goodwill ambassadors, or may be saying a bit too much. In an interview with Laurie Sullivan, reporting in MediaPost News, Online Media Daily describes how Twitter And Facebook Could Get You Fired—because the same rules apply online as offline, but online are magnified by technology. Read the article, and when your company needs to develop a policy or understand how to optimize the benefits and minimize the legal risks, call me, Joe Rosenbaum; or Douglas J. Wood or Stacy Marcus, key lawyers in our Social Media Task Force; or any of the Reed Smith lawyers with whom you regularly work.

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

In the wake of our release and distribution of the Reed Smith Social Media Task Force’s groundbreaking white paper entitled “Network Interference: A Legal Guide to the Commercial Risks and Rewards of the Social Media Phenomenon,” Practical Law Publishing has published a summary, prepared by The Social Media Task Force at Reed Smith, available here and entitled, Social Media Risks and Rewards. The published article represents a condensation of the entire white paper, previously announced in Legal Bytes, and which you can still download in its entirety.

As we mentioned, we will be adding, supplementing and updating these materials with even more chapters and new information, and we will soon be launching a special web page dedicated to the evolving social media legal landscape. If you need help navigating this environment, bear in mind that Reed Smith has a Social Media Task Force – a team of lawyers who have experience, and can advise and guide you as the medium and media evolves. Contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or Douglas J. Wood, Stacy Marcus, or any of the Reed Smith lawyers with whom you regularly work. How can we help you? 

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

In November, Legal Bytes reported (Regulators Poised to Give Financial Institutions a Slap in the Facebook) that Richard Ketchum, Chief Executive of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), acknowledged Wall Street is eager to use social media to interact with customers. In the course of his remarks at a recent meeting of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), he noted, "We continue to witness the advent of technologies that will challenge your ability to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements,” and “Social networking is one such innovation." 

Now, supplementing existing FINRA Rules, FINRA has released a notice concerning online media rules (you can download and read a copy of the notice below) whose key components include requirements that securities firms:

• Must develop policies and require its employees to comply with the new regulatory requirements
• Must retain records of communications (a compliance requirement of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) when social media is used to communicate
• Must ensure that recommendations made through social media are suitable to all investors to whom the recommendation is made (e.g., by limiting or filtering access based on investor/consumer qualifications)

FINRA’s notice takes the position that securities firms must adapt existing rules to social media and essentially mirror the 2003 FINRA definition of “public appearance.” This definition noted that chat room postings were no different than if a firm representative was in a room making statements to a room filled with investors. FINRA’s current notice indicates that information posted or content placed online (static information) is subject to these same rules and must be approved by a firm principal – presumably, even information about individuals in the firm that may be part of an individual’s profile on the firm’s website or in social media platforms. But online interactions that are occurring on the fly (e.g., in real time), while subject to supervisory requirements (e.g., they must be supervised, perhaps even monitored), do not require such approvals.

You can read or download the FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-06 (Social Media Web Sites) [PDF] here.

As mentioned in the Legal Bytes November post, SEC disclosure rules apply to Tweets, blog postings, wall postings and other communication platforms provided by social media sites, and other regulatory agencies are seeking to address the use of social media sites by the entities they regulate (e.g., the FCC, the New York State Insurance Department). So if any of this is of interest and if you need to know more or need help, please contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We are happy to help.

Update:  Reed Smith lawyers Christopher P. Bennet, Amy J. Greer, Jacob Thride and Kevin Xu have prepared a Client Alert on the subject which you can read by going to: FINRA Issues Notice for Financial Firms Using Social Media.

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

This post was written by Laura Hicks and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

Last week, Gerry Sutcliffe, Minister for Sport in the United Kingdom, announced proposals to make significant changes to the existing legislative framework under which remote gambling is regulated. Following a review of the system of online gambling regulation in Great Britain by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, a consultation is being launched with a view to introducing laws requiring all online operators to apply for a license from the Gambling Commission in order to either advertise or provide gambling services to British consumers. According to the Minister for Sport, the proposed changes were "necessary to ensure the protections in the Gambling Act – to keep gambling crime free, to ensure gambling is fair and open, and to ensure that children and vulnerable people are protected from harm – continue to be afforded to British consumers."

Under the proposals, a license will be required even if the gambling services are offered to British consumers using remote gambling equipment from outside Great Britain. Currently, only operators based and licensed in the UK are allowed to advertise in the UK, unless the country in which they are based is either a member state of the EEA or on the government's "whitelist." More information on the "whitelist" is available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website, but to give you some insight, territories currently on the list are Antigua and Barbuda, Tasmania, the States of Alderney and the Isle of Man. "Whitelisting" is the process used by the UK Ministry to assess the regulatory framework for gambling in any jurisdictions outside the EEA that apply for permission to advertise their services within the UK. 

As well as being obliged to share information about suspicious betting patterns with the UK's sports governing bodies and the Gambling Commission, foreign operators would also have to comply with British license requirements concerning the protection of children and vulnerable people, and contribute to the research, education and treatment of problem gambling in the UK.

This appears to be a move by the UK government to close a loophole in the laws that protect online gamblers in the UK, and that more closely mirror the more protectionist regime in the United States. If this extension of the licensing regime is introduced into legislation, it will be interesting to see how the regulator intends to enforce the license scheme against gambling companies with no UK presence. In the United States, enforcement has involved a variety of "indirect" mechanisms, from the Department of Justice's use of the Interstate Wire Act of 1951, which applies to sports betting to assert jurisdiction over online gaming – even though the Fifth Circuit ruled in 2002 that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting – to seizing advertising payments made to broadcast networks by advertisers seeking to promote online gambling considered illegal by the United States. Since 2006, with the enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), the United States has sought to seize assets in financial institutions tied to online gambling, based on what it considers illegal activity, money laundering and a variety of other offenses (see, for example, a recent Huffington Post article). It is noteworthy that UIGEA does not make online gambling illegal per se, but rather prohibits any transfer of funds from a financial institution (as defined in the legislation) to an illegal Internet gambling site.

Once you read the UK Sports Ministry's announcement, if you need more information, contact Laura Hicks, an associate in the Media and Technology team, in our London office. Of course, you can always contact me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum in New York, or Gregor Pryor in London, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work, if you need legal advice, information or support on this subject.

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

Join top legal professionals and government regulators March 17-18, 2010 in Washington, D.C., at the 2010 Annual ANA Advertising Law & Public Policy Conference, where you will hear from Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC and Doug Gansler, Maryland attorney general, as well as leading legal experts both from law firms and client-side marketers.

Connect with key industry leaders and policymakers as we discuss the most volatile and fast-moving legal and political environment for advertising and marketing in decades. Learn about the new regulations, legislation and major court cases that are fundamentally changing the business environment, and how you can keep up!

For the full agenda and to register, go to http://www.ana.net/adlaw2010.

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

[The following article, authored by Michael Skrein and Tom Webley, who are both resident in our London office, reviews the current (and future) state of the UK’s libel multiple publication rule. It was first published as “In Focus. Libel Tourism,” in Legal Strategy Review, Issue 5 (Winter 2009/10), and Legal Bytes gratefully acknowledges and appreciates their permission to re-publish it.]

Media organisations, publishers, journalists and human rights lawyers have, for many years, argued that the UK’s libel multiple publication rule is incompatible with free speech in the modern digital age. This ancient rule renders each publication of defamatory material liable to be sued on as a separate cause of action. That means, for example, that if material remains available online in archives or live websites, the threat of proceedings being issued will hang over the head of the publisher indefinitely. 

The limitation periods in England and Wales for defamation is one year from publication. However, under the multiple publication rule, each ‘hit’ on a website is treated as a new publication and can lead to a claim being brought within that time frame. The rule dates back to a case in 1849 which arose when the Duke of Brunswick purchased a copy of a newspaper published 17 years previously. He then sued for defamation over its contents. The new purchase was ruled to equate to a new publication, thereby allowing him to sue. The rule has been applied to defamation cases in England and Wales ever since. 

A Time For Change?

Unsurprisingly, many lawyers in England and Wales have been arguing that the rule is completely inappropriate and a dangerous anachronism. Many overseas lawyers greet the existence of the rule with disbelief. Nearly 100 years after the Duke of Brunswick case, in 1948, the New York appellate court decided that the multiple publication rule had no place in an American society with mass publication and nationwide distribution, and it replaced the rule with a single publication regime. 

The UK Ministry of Justice has recently published a consultation paper on the topic. It agrees that the multiple publication rule has failed to keep pace with the digital age, conceding that defending a claim becomes increasingly difficult as time passes. 

However, it says that this difficulty must be balanced against the need for a claimant to be given suitable redress for damage to reputation. The paper suggests implementing a single publication rule in which the limitation period runs from the date on which the claimant discovers the defamatory material (if this is within 10 years of initial publication) and/or to have a defence of qualified privilege for archived material (this defence would be defeated if the defendant failed to remove the material having received a reasonable request to do so). 

Implementing a single publication rule in England and Wales would be good news for publishers operating in those countries, and others worldwide would also breathe a sigh of relief as it would reduce the incidence of ‘libel tourism’ in the jurisdictions. For many years, overseas claimants have flocked to the courts to bring defamation actions. As there is no equivalent to the U.S. First Amendment, defendants face several additional legal hurdles, and they may have to pay damages and huge legal fees if they lose. 

The consultation closed on 16 December 2009 and the Ministry of Justice will now consider the responses. Perhaps soon English law will finally lay to rest the spirit of the Duke of Brunswick. 

If you need to know, you need to contact Michael Skrein, a partner, and Tom Webley, an associate, both in our London office. Of course, you can always contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum - or your favorite Reed Smith attorney - who will be more than happy to help or coordinate getting your legal needs taken care of.

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

Wishing you health, happiness, prosperity and peace in 2010

In a tradition that started almost 4,000 years ago by the ancient Babylonians – although they celebrated the new year upon seeing the first new moon after the vernal equinox – please enjoy a very happy, safe and joyous new year celebration.  Those of you who look forward to Useless But Compelling Facts can read more about the history of new year celebrations, or how the new year’s festivities, now televised around the world, began in New York’s Times Square.

 
This is the first year we have published in a blog format, and with your feedback – mostly positive and always constructive – and more than 17,000 visitors in slightly less than 11 months, I am grateful and appreciative for your support.  Thank you for reading Legal Bytes.

-  Joe Rosenbaum

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

As it does every year at this time, Advertising Age has again published its Book of Tens. For as long as I can recall, that has included an amazingly prescient set of legal prediction ‘Tens’ from my partner, Douglas J. Wood, and this year is no different.

Go. Look. Read. Recall last year’s. Save this one for December 2010. It’s amazing how good his track record is . . . but then, if you know him, that shouldn’t surprise you. But some of his predictions this year, just might: Book of Tens: Legal Predictions for 2010.

You can contact Douglas J. Wood directly to tell him how ‘on target’ he is, or you can contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work if you need more information or help in areas related to advertising, media, technology and entertainment. We are here to help.

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

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote (and likely pass) H.R. 4173. H.R. 4173, entitled the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, but commonly referred to as the CFPA (Consumer Financial Protection Act), has been blogged about on Legal Bytes before (see Congressional Hammer Poised to Strike at Financial Advertising). The provisions to which advertisers might wish to pay particular attention are those that would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Rather than summarizing industry concerns over this legislation, I’ve posted a copy of the Industry Letter, signed and sent to members of Congress on behalf of at least these twenty two (22) U.S. associations and coalitions: American Advertising Federation, American Association of Advertising Agencies, American Escrow Association, American Financial Services Association, American Herbal Products Association, Association of National Advertisers, Consumer Data Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Direct Marketing Association, Direct Selling Association, Electronic Retailing Association, Financial Services Institute, Inc., Financial Services Roundtable, Interactive Advertising Bureau, International Franchise Association, Internet Commerce Coalition, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Professional Background Screeners, National Business Coalition on E-Commerce and Privacy, National Retail Federation, Natural Products Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

If you need more information, or if you believe you should have a voice in this process and don’t already have one, Reed Smith is here to help. You can contact me (Joseph I. Rosenbaum) or, of course, any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

In case you weren’t able to attend any of our three seminars on Social Media, we’ll still let you get a glimpse of what you missed. First, you missed Joe Rosenbaum and Anthony Traymore in San Francisco and Palo Alto, and in Century City (L.A.), where we were joined by Kate O’Brien, where we presented: "Social Media: It’s 10:00 p.m. Do You Know Where Your Brand Is?"

If that alone didn’t make you sad, you also missed all the substantive insights and experiences that were shared, the audio-visual effects, the examples and live experience of our presenters and local hosts, as well as the hospitality of three of Reed Smith’s West Coast offices.

What you don’t have to miss is a copy (in PDF form) of the presentations – each of which had slight variations. You can see and download each by selecting the live link on each city below.

While the base presentations were much the same in all three places, in San Francisco we focused a bit more on social media in financial services and corporate securities law. In Silicon Valley (Palo Alto), we did a somewhat deeper dive into the implications of social media in online gaming and entertainment, and in Century City, we focused on user-generated content, open-forum platforms and competitive advertising.

While the results are still being tabulated, we do know that a significant number of our clients and guests received continuing legal education credit (CLE) for attending, in addition to a meal – worth the price of free admission anywhere. We haven’t looked at all the evaluations yet either, but no one fell asleep, everyone stayed through the closing credits and a rousing rendition of the Social Media Blues, and many of our attendees stayed for follow-up questions.

We also received a number of inquiries about the possibility of individual companies or groups hosting a Social Media seminar presented by Reed Smith, and we are happy to do so for yours – we are an accredited CLE provider in most jurisdictions, if that is important to the legal folks – but many have asked about presenting to senior executives, business development, marketing, media and other professionals as well.

Not only can we tailor a seminar to your particular company, your brands and/or your industry, but we have developed, and will continue to develop, modules and focused presentation materials regarding online gaming and virtual worlds; promotions (e.g., sweepstakes, contests, product placements, branded entertainment); advertising and marketing (e.g., testimonials, endorsements, buzz, viral and word-of-mouth); labor and employment; corporate policy, public relations and crisis management; financial services; media and entertainment, including motion pictures and machinima; pharmaceutical, health and life sciences; technology and e-commerce; digital rights management (e.g., user-generated content, hybrid media); privacy, data protection and security; target marketing, location-based and behavioral advertising; regulatory requirements – both government and SRO (e.g., FTC, FCC, CSPC, FDA, PCI compliance, FACTA, GLB, HIPAA); cloud computing, and so much more – and we haven’t even mentioned our international or global experience, expertise or resources in other jurisdictions around the world.

If you are interested, please contact me (Joseph I. Rosenbaum) and we can work with you to help you engage us in your social media conversation with topics that are relevant to you. We will also be updating the research work already released in our Social Media White Paper with some of the materials and further work we continue to do in this area. Stay tuned – social media is not a fad.

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

Well, it seems like almost yesterday (actually a little more than a month ago), that a subsidiary of Mixx, the popular social voting site, launched TweetMixx, a new service that enables companies, brands, politicians, and celebrities collect and aggregate all the mentions about them on Twitter on a single page. “TweetMixx Channels,” as the service is branded, enables you to create a branded page, tailored to you – from your own Twitter Tweets and RSS Feeds to comments from customers, reviewers, fans or pretty much anything you like. We’ll use “you” generically to mean any label that fits – people, brands, goods, services, you name it.

Ever see those vanity license plates on cars? Now you can have your own vanity Twitter Mixx channel, and the service uses “Tabs” to allow a variety of features and functions. There’s one that uses search terms to find links and tweets about you on Twitter, in apparent deference to the new Federal Trade Commission Endorsement Guides (see our post FTC (Revised) Endorsement Guides Go Into Effect earlier today; there’s an “Insiders” tab that identifies anyone with a material connection or that is associated with you (e.g., employees, agents, paid endorsers); and other tabs that enable you to customize and populate the channel. In addition, since the service appears to act both as an aggregation and a search tool for content about you, consumers can find all the Twitter traffic and channel information about you in one place, and at the same time, you can use the service to track and monitor conversations and references to you on Twitter. Right for consumers; right for you – clever.

Remember Facebook’s personalized URLs just a few months ago (Legal Bytes blog post Facebook Adds Personalization & a (Brand) New Dimension)? This is not simply another social media fad. Already companies are getting on the bandwagon (or should we say birdwagon). Today, the National Hockey League (www.nhl.com) will be among the first few enterprises launching its TweetMixx Channel – its own private label branded distribution platform using the TweetMixx service. TweetMixx even provides you with a widget that can be embedded on other websites (think bloggers, profile pages, etc.). The NHL’s “Chatter” tab on TweetMixx, for example, will provide streaming tweets from hockey fans, while a “Links” tab will keep track of the tweets that are retweeted most often, and will rank these favorites by putting them at the top of the TweetMixx Channel web page.

So for advertisers, brand managers, marketing professionals and agencies, this new tool is the beginning of enabling a clearer strategic use of Tweets. Just as branded pages and channels, enabling two-way conversations, have emerged on YouTube and Facebook, allowing brands and celebrities to engage with consumers and fans, TweetMixx seeks to provide an ecosystem for Twitter traffic. Chris McGill, founder and CEO of Mixx, noted that each TweetMixx Channel can be analogized to a “tree.” You have TweetMixx plant a customized tree of your choice, then you are given the tools to nurture it, to prune it and to watch it grow. Do it right and you have branches where Twitter users can “flock, sit and sing” about you – the people, products, services and things they care about. TweetMixx owns the forest!

Can you or your brand afford to stay out of the social media arena? Are you afraid of the new risk-reward paradigm and uncertain what to do? Do you know you have to do something, but are suffering from analysis paralysis? Have traditional models got you stuck in the mire? Call us. Our Advertising Technology & Media law practice group and our newly formed Social Media Task Force already have unparalleled depth, experience and bench-strength in understanding, working with, and advising clients in this brave new world. From developing policies to monitoring compliance; from protecting and enforcing your rights to developing relationships and partnerships with others to engage in the conversation. To win it, you have to be in it. If you need help, contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We are happy to help.

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

This post was written by John P. Feldman. 

Yesterday, Dec. 1, 2009, the revised "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" released by the Federal Trade Commission came into effect. If you are a loyal Legal Bytes' reader, you know we have been following this as early as November 2008, when we posted Endorsements & Testimonials - FTC Broom Proposes Some Sweeping Changes. Numerous updates and informational pieces have graced these pages since then (now when we say "pages," we mean web pages), and you can refer back to any or all of them, or you can check out any you may have missed right here: FTC Testimonial and Endorsement Guides Stimulate Industry Comment (March 2009); a presentation given at the University of Limerick on the subject entitled "Trust Me, I'm a Satisfied Customer: Testimonials & Endorsements in the United States," which you can download (If You Didn't Make It to Ireland ...); Ghostwriters: Medical Research or Paid Endorsers (and are they mutually exclusive?) and Rights of Publicity - Wake Up and Smell the Coffee! (both in August 2009); and FTC Releases Updated Endorsement & Testimonial Guidelines and Reed Smith Analysis of the New FTC Endorsement and Testimonial Guidelines (both in October 2009).

Yesterday, John P. Feldman, an authority in these types of advertising regulations and compliance and who is based in Washington, D.C., put together some thoughts concerning the implications of these Guides upon coming into effect, continuing his thoughtful and practical analysis. While we will maintain bringing you news and information about the Guides, John's analysis is timely and helpful, and outlines some considerations every advertiser – online, in social media and off-line – and every blogger, viral marketer, celebrity endorser or consumer making a testimonial, should take into account. John's analysis, which you can download and read in its entirety by selecting the link below, asks and answers the following questions about these Guides:

• What does this mean for advertisers?
• What is the most dramatic shift in enforcement policy?
• What will this mean for advertisers that use celebrity endorsers?
• How much control should sponsoring advertisers exercise over endorsers in new mediachannels?
• What impact will the FTC's new approach to clinical trials have on the OTC, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industry?
• Is there a role for self-regulation and what do you make of the proposed "best practices" recently announced by the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA)?

You can download your own copy of John's analysis or you can read it online right here: "FTC Endorsement Guides (Revised) - Some Thoughts As They Become Effective". You won't be disappointed. In addition, if you want to know more about these issues or have questions about your particular circumstances, please do contact John P. Feldman directly, or you can call Joseph I. Rosenbaum or Douglas. J. Wood or, of course, any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

Just a reminder that space is filling up, so if you want to join us for any of the three West Coast social media law seminars please use the registration link below to sign up. Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum and Anthony Traymore from the Advertising Technology & Media Group in New York and local Reed Smith lawyers in each office will present: "Social Media: It’s 10:00 p.m. Do You Know Where Your Brand Is?"

Can’t attend?  If you are a client, we can do a customized in-house seminar for your legal department, executive management, marketing or other professionals. Not a client, perhaps you should be.  Interested? Contact Joe Rosenbaum.

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

Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum had a busy week. In an interview with the editors of Lexblog, Joe tells Lexblog why blogging on Legal Bytes is both fun and informative. You can read the entire interview on the Lexblog page "Real Lawyers Have Blogs".

Joe was also quoted in an article by Maria Aspan in the American Banker, about the announcement by American Express that it was acquiring Revolution Money - part of Amex' efforts to continue to evolve and provide a broader (and increasingly relevant online and digital) range of payment options for consumers and merchants. If you are interested, feel free to read Maria’s entire story, "Amex Tries to Buy a 'Revolution'".

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

Did you miss our New York seminar on Social Media? Well now you can catch us in California. Three of Reed Smith's offices in California will be hosting a seminar on social media, where Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum and Anthony Traymore from the Advertising Technology & Media Group in New York, and local Reed Smith lawyers in each office, will present:

"Social Media: It's 10 p.m. Do You Know Where Your Brand Is?"

Tweets, profiles, avatars, blogs, chats, friend requests, user-generated content, personalized pages, customized URLs—keeping up with social media is daunting. Social media continues to change the rules of engagement, and for companies, brands, marketing professionals and their legal advisors, engagement is now the rule. Just as economic and advertising models for whole industries are changing to take advantage of social media, industries must confront new and unprecedented legal risks in this brave new world of engagement—a world where lawmakers, regulators and courts are struggling to figure it out. Legal risks and challenges abound; so does opportunity—for brands who know before they go!

Reed Smith LLP is a State Bar of California-approved MCLE provider, and this course qualifies for 1.5 general MCLE Credit. The presentations will highlight:

• Best practices for corporate engagement in social media
• How to approach workplace policies
• The current and potential legal landscape evolving around social media platforms
• Case studies—social media successes and failures
• Highlights of our "white paper": A Legal Guide to the Commercial Risks and Rewards of the Social Media Phenomenon, recently released by the Reed Smith Social Media Task Force
• And much more

Because of the high level interest received, we will be conducting the seminar in three of our California offices.

1.  Reed Smith's San Francisco Office

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Registration & Breakfast: 8:30 a.m.; Program: 9:00 – 10:30 a.m.

2.  Reed Smith's Silicon Valley (Palo Alto) Office

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Registration & Lunch: 12:30 p.m.; Program: 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.

3.  Reed Smith's Century City (Los Angeles) Office

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Registration & Breakfast: 8:30 a.m.; Program: 9:00 – 10:30 a.m.

We hope you will attend, and we encourage you to share this invitation with others. For your convenience, here is a link to the invitation & registration page for these sessions.

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

Remember when Legal Bytes posted that little note about gift cards now being part of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, for the first time formally bringing gift cards under federal regulation? Remember we told you that as part of the process, “by July 2010, the Federal Reserve Board is to have crafted and approved new rules covering consumer disclosures (i.e., advertising, application forms, etc.)”?

Well today, the Federal Reserve Board announced proposed rules that would restrict gift card fees, limit expiration dates to a minimum of five years (after issuance or the last time funds were loaded), and prohibit dormancy, inactivity, and service fees, unless it was limited to once per month, the consumer was notified, and the inactivity has lasted for at least one year.

The FRB has been busy around Regulation E (EFT). Last week, the FRB announced its Final Rule surrounding ATM and one-time debit card overdrafts (See “The Fed Notices an Overdraft – Decides to Close the ATM Window”, posted on Legal Bytes earlier today). These regulations are also promulgated under Regulation E, and although the proposed rules have not yet been published in the Federal Register (expected soon), you can download a copy here: Federal Register – Gift Card Rulemaking Notice.

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

Yesterday evening, Reed Smith and Boyden Executive Search Agencies co-sponsored a seminar in which Douglas J. Wood, head of Reed Smith’s Media & Entertainment Industry Group, joined by Sarah Needleman from The Wall Street Journal, and Kathy Ewing, assistant general counsel at Benjamin Moore, discussed the legal, social and economic implications of the social media and social networking revolution.

Friday the 13th notwithstanding – it’s the third one this year and, for you Useless-But-Compelling-Facts fans, the most any single year can have – today is your lucky day. Even if you missed it, the seminar can be downloaded right here: “Making Sense of Social Media.” And, in keeping with our triskaidekaphobic theme, Legal Bytes is proud to present a double whammy.

Simultaneously with this first-in-a-series of seminars, we have released a groundbreaking white paper entitled Network Interference: A Legal Guide to the Commercial Risks and Rewards of the Social Media Phenomenon. The white paper, which you can also download by clicking the linked title above, was compiled by Stacy Marcus and edited by Douglas J. Wood (head of Reed Smith’s Media & Entertainment Industry Group) and Joseph I. Rosenbaum, Chair of Reed Smith’s global Advertising Technology & Media Law Practice). The white paper includes contributions from our social media task force – numerous Reed Smith lawyers across many disciplines affected by or involved in the social media revolution.

We will be adding, supplementing and updating these materials with even more chapters and new information as this exciting area continues to dynamically unfold. Whether you are an active participant in the commercial world of social media or are confused by it, this is a must read.

Oh, and if you want to actually be social and sociable Joseph I. Rosenbaum and Anthony S. Traymore will be presenting MCLE accredited and customized variations of these Social Media Seminars in our offices in San Francisco, the morning of December 8th, in Palo Alto at mid-day the same day and in Century City the morning of December 9th – so be social and if you are on the West Coast and your schedule permits, mark your calendar and watch the Whatz Gnu? section of Legal Bytes over the next week for further information and links to an invitation and registration.

If you or your brand advertising and marketing professionals think social media is a fad, you need to GWI or start waving goodbye. The train is leaving the station without you. But, if you recognize that digital and web-based technology, coupled with new interactive social platforms and applications are changing the way we interact, communicate, work, play, learn and entertain; are changing the legal and socio-economic landscape; and, indeed, are changing how brands and companies engage with their customers, their employees, their suppliers and yes, their investors and shareholders: well, then OMG, you totally get it.

But even if you do, navigating the waters as legislators, regulators and courts struggle to enact or apply a legal framework originally intended for a world with easily defined borders and tangible products, can be daunting. That’s why Reed Smith has a core and virtual team of lawyers who have experience and can advise you and guide you through the uncertainties. Contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or Douglas J. Wood, Stacy Marcus, or Anthony Traymore, or any of the Reed Smith lawyers with whom you regularly work. How can we help you?

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

Congress is listening—why do you think they are called "hearings"? But will your voice be heard? The U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, and the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, will hold a joint hearing on "Exploring the Offline and Online Collection and Use of Consumer Information" Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009. If you or your representatives aren't in the room, you can't be part of the conversation and you won't be heard. If you can't make it, but you want to listen, or be heard, or both—let me (Joe Rosenbaum), or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work, know.

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

Presumably, that's why Willie Sutton robbed banks. So I ask you, somewhat rhetorically, why would anyone defraud advertisers on the Internet. Well, if you don't know, please refer to the title—that's what this note is about.

Remember click fraud? That's the name for illicit activity in which someone or something (a computer executing macros, automated scripts, etc.) emulates the click-selection process on a web advertisement. Why is that fraud? Well for one thing, if you are counting the number of times visitors "select" your advertising, click fraud makes it seem like lots of browsers out there are attracted to your advertising. But it ain't necessarily so. Even worse, if an advertiser is paying each time a visitor browses the ad—pay per click—that advertiser can pay a significant amount of money for eyeballs that simply aren't there. While you might think some clever computer hackers or scammers were engaging in this activity for kick (something like a teenager joyriding with the family car), when you find out your competitors are retaining the services of others to engage in that activity, making your advertising seem exceedingly successful and driving up your cost of sales while they are merrily trimming their costs—well that's why they call it fraud after all.

Solid investigative work, pattern detection, programs designed to sniff out repetitive or rapid clicks and Internet protocol and address tracking—1000 clicks per second from the same address—can't completely prevent click fraud, but they can make it more difficult, make the insertion companies, publishers and networks more accountable for accurate metrics and payment mechanisms, and can sometimes even lead to prosecutions.

More recently, even more sophisticated schemes have arisen, including fake advertisements, appearing to be for a legitimate company, but that are actually a launching pad for malicious code—capable of phishing or denial of service attacks, or penetrating corporate firewalls to access company networks and systems.

Now this is not a particularly new problem. After Hyundai was victimized, earlier this year, Initiative, the Agency of Record for Hyundai, sent out letters to its business partners, presumably to its publishing and advertising network partners, stating “someone allegedly working for Hyundai, or working at other agencies, has contacted various sites requesting proposals, and have even run a short campaign,” and requesting that they be notified immediately if contact is made “from an e-mail domain address of 'Hyundai-inc.com'.”

Publicis, one of the world's largest advertising holding companies and the largest global network within the Publicis Groupe, headquartered in France, has also been warning publishing networks about these fake ads. This past Oct. 5, Digitas, Optimedia, MediaVest, Zenith, and Spark (each of them Publicis companies) sent letters to their media partners [link to PDF] alerting them to: "rogue software and malicious advertising that is being placed on websites by individuals pretending to represent legitimate insertion requests."

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal noted yet another scam in web-based advertising: invisible ads. Agencies and media buyers are generally unable to audit banner campaigns when bought through ad networks and purchased on a CPM basis. Now imagine you are paying for ads based on web pages loaded, not clicks. Well, according to the article, Ben Edelman, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School who has been studying Internet advertising, has discovered that these "invisible" ads use computer programming code to make it appear as if the ads are where they are supposed to be. But when you point your browser to the web page where the ad is supposed to be, NOTHING IS VISIBLE. Notice I didn't say that nothing was there. I said it wasn't visible. BUT, if you are reading this, pay attention.  Take your cursor and highlight the entire blank space above right after the words "ad is supposed to be," all the way through to "Notice I didn't say," the previously hidden text becomes visible.  You see, the letters are there, but they are in the same color as the background, so they appear invisible to the reader. A fairly old trick. Now imagine there's a web-based advertisement on an invisible web page. The browser "sees" the page and acts as if that page is loaded and open—only you can't see it.

The Wall Street Journal article notes that security experts at Symantec and McAfee, as well as at online verification and audit companies DoubleVerify and Anchor Intelligence, have confirmed the programming code used to create the invisible ads. Code that ultimately causes advertisers, including some major companies and brands, to pay for advertising that is "there," but not to the user. Just like the text color coded to appear invisible against the background here, these programming codes—normally used to tell the computer how to display a web page when a browser loads the page—make the display (referred to as an "iframe") invisible, so the user won't actually see anything within that iframe. Because you can't see any of the contents, scammers can create multiple invisible iframes, even on the same page. Mr. Edelman reported that he "opened a series of invisible pages on the visitor's computer with as many as 46 ads"—none of which could be seen.

I suspect that when Congress and regulators refer to targeted advertising, they aren't thinking about criminals who target legitimate advertisers and publishing networks and ultimately cost them (and you) money. But here at Legal Bytes, and among the lawyers at Reed Smith, we are! Need to know more about digital advertising, publishing networks, media and marketing online? Call Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers at Reed Smith you work with. We are happy to help.

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

This post was written by Anthony S. Traymore and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

A few weeks ago, Legal Bytes reported that, buried in the new financial services "reform" legislation, is the establishment of a brand new regulatory agency – the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (see Congressional Hammer Poised to Strike at Financial Advertising). Guess what. Not to be outdone, the regulators are in the act – pardon the pun – already. Witness recent statements by Richard Ketchum, Chief Executive of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). In recent statements, Ketchum acknowledged that Wall Street is eager to use social media like Facebook, Twitter and Linked In to interact with customers and, that to a large extent, the growth of the use of these sites is inevitable. But at a recent Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) meeting, he noted, "We continue to witness the advent of technologies that will challenge your ability to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements," and "Social networking is one such innovation."

At that same meeting, Ketchum raised the issue that retention functionality available on social media services may not be sufficient to ensure a financial service firm's compliance with applicable regulations, including the FINRA Rules. If you aren’t a broker-dealer, don't read the next sentence. But if you are: Imagine how social media services used by brokers to communicate with clients could impact FINRA Rules concerning Communications and Disclosures (see, Section 2200). FINRA has now set up a taskforce comprised of industry professionals to explore how firms may utilize social media to better communicate with their customers without "compromising investor protection."   

Such studies and evolutionary (or revolutionary) regulation are increasingly common these days. As our loyal readers already know, Legal Bytes reported previously (FTC Releases Updated Endorsement & Testimonial Guidelines and Reed Smith Analysis of the New FTC Endorsement and Testimonial Guidelines), that the FTC’s revised Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising will become effective Dec. 1, 2009. These revised guidelines represent updates to the prior guides, and acknowledge the proliferation of false claims, phony testimonials, and spurious endorsements (or negative comments) by consumers, experts, organizations and celebrities, through the use of blogs and other "word of mouth" marketing tools. As described in a recent Wall Street Journal article, the SEC disclosure rules apply to Tweets, blog postings, wall postings and other communication platforms provided by social media sites. Other regulatory agencies are similarly seeking to address the use of social media sites by the entities they regulate (e.g., the FCC, the New York State Insurance Department).

Do you have a social media policy?  The complexities are enormous. Internal (during work) and external (non-working hours). Employees, agents, contractors and suppliers. Domain names, URLs and trademarks (which include service marks, for you purists in the audience). Approved content or ad hoc comments. Official presence or not – condoned or not. Today, activities outside the scope of employment are often considered not attributable back to the company absent special circumstances or relationships. Will social media break down those barriers further? If so, what can companies do to reach their customers while continuing to protect their most valuable assets – their employees and their brands? Does a company have the right to regulate conduct outside the workplace, even if it involves reference to the company? Oh, and by the way, you do know that social media, enabled by the borderless web, doesn’t really pay attention to national boundaries, AND that means it's not just U.S. law you may need to worry about – even if you are a U.S. company. If you are an international, multinational or global company . . . good luck. No, not good luck. Call us. Our Advertising Technology & Media Law group has unparalleled breadth and depth in understanding, working with, and advising clients in this brave new world. 

So if any of this is of passing interest, stay tuned. If it is or becomes a pressing need, please contact Joseph I. Rosenbaum or Anthony S. Traymore, and let us help you avoid being anti-social. Of course, if you are already a Reed Smith client, feel free to contact the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work, and he or she will be happy to coordinate your legal needs with us.

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

This post was contributed by John Feldman, edited by Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

Puerto Rico Sweepstakes Regulation Revised

Earlier this week, Luis G. Rivera Marín, Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, announced the enactment of the country’s revised Sweepstakes and Games of Chance Regulation, effective Nov. 27, 2009. The new rules remove legal barriers that previously forced advertisers and other promoters to void sales promotions in Puerto Rico and to limit participation in many product and service sweepstakes to only residents of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. When it becomes effective, the regulation will provide the 3.9 million residents of Puerto Rico with an array of opportunities to participate in the “chance to win” promotional marketplace more generally available within the U.S. market.

“I am pleased to announce that the many practical complications U.S. advertisers previously experienced conducting sweepstakes in Puerto Rico, which routinely led to excluding our residents from participation in their promotions, are now behind us,” Mr. Rivera said. “For many years our laws made it impossible for companies to conduct national sweepstakes here, and consequently we have been excluded from the opportunity to take part in these potentially valuable promotions. We enter a new chapter now whereby our law adequately protects consumers without locking ourselves out of perfectly legitimate sweepstakes.”

Changes in Puerto Rico’s Sweepstakes and Games of Chance Regulation align the Commonwealth’s rules and definitions with regulations in the United States promulgated by the U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and individual states. Highlights of the new regulation include:

• The definition of "consideration" contains some of the best language for SMS and other technology-based sweepstakes in the United States
• The requirement that the rules be certified by a notary is GONE
• The vague prior reference to having to deliver prizes within three months is GONE
• An express provision defining "abbreviated rules" has been added and the regulation provides for the use of abbreviated rules in advertising, so long as they point to where the full rules are published
• Although rules still need to be "published," you can now satisfy that requirement by putting them on a website
• The requirement that rules be published, disseminated and spread in Spanish is GONE. The new regulations allow you to publish them in the language of the advertisement.
• Complicated “odds of winning” statements have been simplified
• Complicated publication dates for different types of promotions are GONE
• The requirement that the drawing procedures be certified by a notary is GONE
• Notarized certification of game piece security codes is GONE
• Tax liability, which was previously placed on the promoter, is now on the entrant 
• A requirement that full rules appear in print ad covering more than two-thirds of the page is GONE
• Regulations concerning unavailability of prizes based on "foreseeability" of circumstances is GONE
• Penalty for not awarding prizes if the circumstances were foreseeable is GONE
• Although changes to rules still need to be approved by the Secretary, if no action is taken after 10 business days, the default is approval
• The complex prize awarding regulations (e.g., within three months; quality advertised) has been simplified—now requiring that prizes be awarded as advertised
• The requirement that alternate winners be chosen is tempered by the caveat that some prizes, because of their nature, cannot be awarded to an alternate winner
• Any distinction between games originating inside or outside of Puerto Rico is GONE

“DACO is grateful for the assistance of John Feldman, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Reed Smith LLP, an international law firm, and Gabe Karp, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of ePrize LLC, the worldwide leader in interactive promotions, who both provided the Department with a great deal of information and significant input and suggestions in redrafting the sweepstakes regulations,” Mr. Rivera said. “Without Mr. Feldman’s and Mr. Karp’s able consultation and guidance over the past several months, the opening of a vibrant Puerto Rican sweepstakes market for U.S. advertisers and our people would not have been possible.

“Both Reed Smith and ePrize are cutting edge in the area of promotions, particularly in the cross border aspects of this advertising specialty,” Mr. Rivera continued. “They provide aggressive and creative thinking, as John and Gabe did in helping us solve our longstanding issue with sweepstakes barriers.”

Legal Bytes congratulates John Feldman in our D.C. office, who is not only an authority in sweepstakes, contests and a wide variety of promotions, but is also well-regarded by peers and by regulators who, as in this case, call upon John for his insight and who respect his reasoned and experienced views. Nice work. You can download the text of the revised Sweepstakes and Games of Chance Regulation right here.

If you are a client, you can get the benefit of his experience by contacting John Feldman directly; or me or Douglas J. Wood any of our Advertising Technology & Media law team; or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. If you aren’t a client and you advertise, engage in promotions or marketing – why aren’t you?

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

Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum was recently interviewed by American Banker reporter Maria Aspan in connection with advertising and marketing consumer credit cards, and certain legal implications in brand marketing and advertising, including some of the more subtle viral and social media campaigns. Joe’s quotes appear in an article by Ms. Aspan entitled, "Barclaycard U.S. Taking Baby Steps in the Public Eye".

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

Even if you missed the educational webinar—held Oct. 23, 2009; sponsored by the Long Tail Alliance Program of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB); and presented by Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, partner at Reed Smith and general counsel of the IAB, and Adam Snukal, senior associate at Reed Smith—you're in luck. A PDF copy of the seminar, which covered many current legal issues in advertising compliance, privacy, and social media, can be downloaded right here: What Me Worry? Legal Best Practices for Small Publishers.

We’ve been told the Interactive Advertising Bureau will be posting a video recording of the webinar, so you can watch a replay of the entire broadcast, if you like, at your convenience. We will provide details once we receive them.

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

Just a reminder that this coming Friday, October 23, 2009, from 12 – 1 p.m. (Eastern US Time), Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, partner at Reed Smith and general counsel of the IAB, assisted by Adam Snukal, senior associate at Reed Smith, will be presenting an educational webinar, sponsored by the Long Tail Alliance Program of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The title is: What, Me Worry? Legal Best Practices for Small Publishers. 

The webinar will provide an overview of the legal issues and suggested best practices in the following areas:

Advertising Compliance ** Privacy ** Social Media

There will be a Q&A session as time permits at the end of the session, and a .PDF copy will be available on Legal Bytes after the seminar is over.

The webinar is open not only to IAB members and Reed Smith clients, but also to anyone who is interested - on a first-come, first-served basis. So register now. You can get more information and register right here for What, Me Worry? Legal Best Practices for Small Publishers. 

About the Long Tail Alliance Program

The IAB formed the Long Tail Alliance program in summer 2008 to encourage involvement with individuals and small business who, powered by interactive advertising, have turned their interests and passions into a media revolution. The Alliance is the beginning of something the IAB envisions as a much larger portrait of American entrepreneurs who are pursuing and achieving the American dream, even as they row hard against strong economic currents. The IAB hopes to expand its Long Tail Membership in order to encourage advocacy, training, and a coming-together of smaller publishers across America as their businesses grow, all while the dynamic of technology and media continues to change.

For more information, click here: http://iamthelongtail.com/707346

About the IAB

The Interactive Advertising Bureau is comprised of more than 375 leading media and technology companies who are responsible for selling 86 percent of online advertising in the United States. On behalf of its members, the IAB is dedicated to the growth of the interactive advertising marketplace, of interactive's share of total marketing spend, and of its members' share of total marketing spend. The IAB educates marketers, agencies, media companies and the wider business community about the value of interactive advertising. Working with its member companies, the IAB evaluates and recommends standards and practices, and fields critical research on interactive advertising. Founded in 1996, the IAB is headquartered in New York City, with a Public Policy office in Washington, D.C.

About Reed Smith

Reed Smith is a global, full-service law firm with nearly 1600 lawyers in 23 offices around the world. Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, a partner in the New York office, chairs the firm’s global Advertising Technology & Media law practice, is the editor and publisher of Legal Bytes, is Corporate Secretary & General Counsel to the IAB, and is an ex-officio member of the IAB Board. Adam Snukal is a senior associate who works with Joe in the Advertising Technology & Media law group and is editor of Adlaw by Request, the gold standard in advertising legal publications in the industry.

Join us for this exciting and timely IAB Long Tail Alliance webinar presented by Reed Smith. We look forward to your participation.

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

Under mounting pressure that "An Act To Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices against Minors"—which was recently enacted and which became effective last month—was unconstitutional (both on free speech grounds and because it unduly restricted intestate commerce), a Maine legislative committee recommended that the new privacy law be repealed. The law would have placed restrictions on the collection and use of data of minors—effectively extending many provisions of COPPA to teens age 13 to 18—and requiring parental consent for the collection of any personal information. While concern still remains over sensitive data (e.g., medical- and health-related information), Maine appears to be poised to modify the original law to limit its applicability to health- and medical-related information of minors. 

Without belaboring the Constitutional arguments (preemption by federal law, unlawful restriction on interstate commerce beyond a state’s interest in protecting its citizens) the Act, if enforced, would have even restricted the rights of teenagers to receive certain information or to participate in social media and social networking activities. Opposition was unusually diverse—with the Center for Democracy & Technology. a civil liberties-focused organization, and the Maine Independent Colleges Association, joining the marketing-oriented Motion Picture Association of America and the Association of National Advertisers in objecting to the legislation.

Apparently in deference to the court cases that had been filed in opposition and the arguments made, Maine’s attorney general previously indicated she would not enforce the Act.

Privacy? Children’s Advertising? State vs. federal law? We can help sort out the confusion. Call me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or John Feldman or Douglas J. Wood, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

The late Will Rogers, that wonderful American humorist from Oklahoma, once said: "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." Presumably, the image conjured up by that remark relates to just how much damage can be done before someone takes the hammer away! Well, in those days, Mr. Rogers lauded then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt for taking the hammer away from Congress before they did too much damage. If the strong response the newest Administration/Congressional initiative has evoked from the banking, advertising and media industries is any indication, one might conclude that President Obama has been providing too many hammers these days. This may be a little longer than my usual blog post, but read on . . . you won’t be disappointed.  

To provide a little context for the consternation, a few months ago, gift cards were inserted (for the first time) into federal legislation, ostensibly targeted at the practices of financial institutions applicable to credit cards. Where previously state legislation reigned supreme, the promotion of gift cards, disclosures regarding dormancy or inactivity fees, expiration dates, among other things, became part of U.S. federal law under the new Credit Card Act of 2009.. The legislation was intended to prevent abuses in the credit card industry and protect consumers, and in that spirit, a section covering gift cards seemed like a nice idea. But when it came to gift cards, it was unclear what problems had arisen that were not already (or couldn't be) dealt with by state law – what was broken that needed to be fixed by federal regulators. Is concentrating regulatory power and discretionary rulemaking in the hands of federal agencies, simply for the sake of control, always a good thing?

So in case you haven’t heard, let’s talk about the newly proposed Consumer Finance Protection Agency (the “CFPA”). The CFPA is part of the Administration’s regulatory reform proposal submitted to Congress a few months ago, intended to provide a new regulatory framework for the financial services industry and, among other things, prevent practices and problems that led to the current crisis in the financial industry. Well, if you are a banker, broker-dealer, insurer or a financial officer, you probably already know the government is considering such major reforms and a restructuring of the current regulatory scheme.

BUT, have the finance folks told the marketing and advertising professionals to start worrying too? Perhaps now would be a good time to do so! In referring to the CFPA, Edward L. Yingling, President of the American Bankers Association, has said, “This agency would have broad powers that go beyond every consumer law that has ever been enacted.” You see, the newly proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009, now fast-tracking its way through the U.S. House of Representatives, would restructure the Federal Trade Commission and give much of its current responsibility for regulating financial services-related advertising and marketing to a brand new regulatory agency - the newly proposed CFPA. I direct your attention to Subtitle C – Specific Authorities (Sections 131 - 139) of the Act, which would give the new CFPA the authority to review not only consumer lending practices, but also fraud and deceptive advertising, to determine and establish rules governing whether or not marketing practices and advertising are misleading, or if consumer financial products and services are being advertised and marketed fairly to consumers. By the way, the CFPA would also be empowered to interpret and enforce the new Credit Card Act of 2009 noted above. Would it surprise you that the Association of National Advertisers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would worry about what a new and potentially confusing and overlapping regulatory scheme, and a completely new regulatory agency, will mean for the advertising, agency and media industries?

If you thought all you had to worry about were things like privacy, behavioral advertising, free speech, blogger liability for claims, ‘Net neutrality, cloud computing, celebrity endorsements and social media - tweet, tweet – think again. Just yesterday, Advertising Age reported that some media industry professionals fear certain aspects of the new legislation will hold media liable for simply running advertisements related to financial services and products that the newly created CFPA believes are misleading. That would effectively push media into the role of de facto censors of advertising content. In other words, it would be a "safer" path (read less legal liability) to simply refuse to accept or run advertising that it determines might be too risky. One section of the proposed bill would empower the CFPA to create standards regarding what is or is not lawful in financial services advertising. Another section could be construed to extend liability to anyone in the chain of development, insertion, creation, displaying or broadcasting an unlawful advertisement. Could that be you?

Continue Reading...

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

This post was written by Stacy Marcus and Joe Rosenbaum.

The buzz over online behavioral advertising in the United States has been building since the 2008 hearings in Congress over deep packet inspection. The first class-action lawsuit targeting behavioral advertising, Valentine v. NebuAd (N.D. Cal., No. 3:08-cv-05113), was filed in November 2008, followed soon thereafter by Simon v. Adzilla (N.D. Cal., No. 3:09-c-00879) in February 2009.

In the first case, NebuAd and six other ISPs were accused of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Computer Crime Law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, by using deep packet inspection technology. Specifically, the NebuAd complaint alleged that customers were unaware their online activity was being monitored for marketing purposes; that either no notice or consent was provided; that any notice that may have been attempted was insufficient or misleading; and that their technology intentionally sought to negate customers’ efforts to remove tracking cookies. For their part, the defendants vigorously deny having violated customers’ privacy rights, noting that they did not collect personally identifiable information, and that the data collected was anonymized to protect the identities of customers.

Since its filing in November 2008, all of the defendants in the NebuAd case have moved to dismiss the action on various grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Just a few days ago (Oct. 6, 2009), the court granted the motions in respect of five of the defendants, to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdictions, citing the fact that the ISPs that were not based in California did not provide a sufficient and constitutionally reasonable basis for a California court to assert jurisdiction. However, the ruling leaves NebuAd as the last defendant standing in the action. But wait. There’s more. In May 2009, NebuAd liquidated its assets and went out of business. In fact, on the day the court dismissed the action against the other five defendants, the court also granted NebuAd’s counsel’s motion to withdraw from the case. That said, the court refused the additional request to stay the proceedings against NebuAd until new counsel could be retained. Stay tuned . . . we’ll track this for you!

Now in the second case, Adzilla (whose website is currently “under construction”) and three other defendants were parties to a joint venture that created a technology called the “ZILLAcaster.” According to the press release of Adzilla partner NetLogix, “[t]he ZILLAcaster technology resides within the service provider's network, the closest point to the subscriber, and utilizes network data in combination with contextual and behavioral targeting to make decisions regarding the delivery of the most relevant ad content for network users. Content can be delivered down to individuals without the use of any desktop, software, or adware.” The plaintiffs claim that this ZILLAcaster oversees, inspects, copies, transmits and actually permits the alteration of the user’s Internet communications – all without any notice to the user. Although there is no allegation that any actual ads were served to Simon (the plaintiff) as a result of this ZILLAcaster, the plaintiffs argue that simply tracking them in this manner violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Computer Crime Law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act through the use of deep packet inspection. Adzilla has denied plaintiffs’ allegations and asserted numerous defenses. 

Less than two months ago (Aug. 18, 2009), Continental Broadband was dismissed from the action, and on Oct. 2, 2009, a filing in the case seeks to voluntarily dismiss Core Communications d/b/a CoreTel as a defendant in the lawsuit. If the filing is granted, only Adzilla and its parent company, Conducive Corporation, will remain as defendants.

So why should you care? Because given the settlement of Facebook’s class action lawsuit over its Beacon technology, these two lawsuits are the only major ones we are aware of that are pending, that concern online behavioral advertising AND that could potentially yield decisions and opinions. Given Congress’ and the FTC’s interest in consumer privacy in general, and online behavioral advertising in particular, a decision in either of these two cases could set the stage for government regulation and policy – confirming with or reactive to these decisions – and may well set precedent for future online behavioral advertising cases in the months and years ahead. While it’s too soon to tell, we will keep you posted as they unfold. As always, you can contact the authors, Stacy Marcus and Joe Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work, for more information or assistance.

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

A few days ago, Legal Bytes alerted you to the fact that the Federal Trade Commission has issued revised "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising". These revisions update the FTC’s Guides, last modified in 1980, that provide direction to advertisers and agencies regarding compliance with the FTC Act.

John P. Feldman, a partner in our Washington, D.C. office and a key member of our Advertising Technology & Media law team, has prepared (and you can view and download) an Analysis of the New Guides. Of course, no memorandum prepared for general information or a summary of this type can provide legal advice, and you should be careful not to rely on it since everyone’s circumstances and the facts of each situation will differ – at a minimum, based on the type of product or service, the target audience, and the advertising media, among other things. That said, the summary will give you a good overview of what is in the Guides and what is different or updated from the prior Guides.

Of course, if you need specific guidance or need to know more about the FTC Guides, or the implications to social media advertising and marketing or traditional advertising, feel free to contact John P. Feldman, Douglas J. Wood or Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

On Friday, October 23, 2009, from 12 – 1 p.m. (Eastern U.S. Time), Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, Partner at Reed Smith and General Counsel of the IAB, assisted by Adam Snukal, Senior Associate at Reed Smith, will be presenting an educational webinar, sponsored by the Long Tail Alliance Program of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), entitled: What Me Worry? Legal Best Practices for Small Publishers.

The webinar will provide an overview of the legal issues and suggested best practices in the following areas:

Trademarks: Buying someone else’s key words? Displaying advertising? Sponsoring or hosting contests, sweepstakes, co-branded promotions? Using social media or virtual worlds? Trademarks are everywhere. When should you worry?

Compliance: What’s new at the FTC and FCC? Industry groups want self-regulation. Privacy and consumer advocacy groups want more regulation. Congress is poised to “do something.” What you need to know about marketing to children, adults, compliance with sectoral advertising regulations, from finance and health care to product safety.

Privacy: Behavioral targeting has everyone up in arms. What should a small publisher do if she feels her privacy policy has been violated?

Social Media: Blogs, splogs and vlogs. Virtual worlds, avatars and pseudonyms. Profiles and networks, friends and fans. Testimonials and endorsements – from celebrities to consumers, paid and unpaid. Buzz, viral and word of mouth. Defamation, libel, copyright and personalized URLs. Sound confusing? It is. But ignorance won’t insulate you from liability. Don’t want to become a regulatory target? What you should know.

Q&A: IAB and Reed Smith to answer questions from participants.

The webinar is open to IAB members, to Reed Smith clients, and to the general public on a first-come, first-served basis. Register now. You can get more information and register right here for What Me Worry? Legal Best Practices for Small Publishers.

About the Long Tail Alliance Program

The IAB formed the Long Tail Alliance program in summer 2008 to encourage involvement with individuals and small businesses who, powered by interactive advertising, have turned their interests and passions into a media revolution. The Alliance is the beginning of something the IAB envisions as a much larger portrait of American entrepreneurs who are pursuing and achieving the American dream, even as they row hard against strong economic currents. The IAB hopes to expand its Long Tail Membership in order to encourage advocacy, training, and a coming-together of smaller publishers across America as their businesses grow, all while the dynamic of technology and media continues to change.

For more information, click here.

About the IAB

The Interactive Advertising Bureau is comprised of more than 375 leading media and technology companies that are responsible for selling 86 percent of online advertising in the United States. On behalf of its members, the IAB is dedicated to the growth of the interactive advertising marketplace, of interactive's share of total marketing spend, and of its members' share of total marketing spend. The IAB educates marketers, agencies, media companies and the wider business community about the value of interactive advertising. Working with its member companies, the IAB evaluates and recommends standards and practices, and fields critical research on interactive advertising. Founded in 1996, the IAB is headquartered in New York City, with a Public Policy office in Washington, D.C.

About Reed Smith

Reed Smith is a global, full service law firm with nearly 1600 lawyers in 23 offices around the world. Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, a partner in the New York office, chairs the firm’s global Advertising Technology & Media law practice; is the editor and publisher of Legal Bytes; is Corporate Secretary & General Counsel to the IAB; and is an ex-officio member of the IAB Board. Adam Snukal is a Senior Associate who works with Joe in the Advertising Technology & Media law group, and is editor of Adlaw by Request, the gold standard in advertising legal publications in the industry.

Join us for this exciting and timely IAB Long Tail Alliance webinar presented by Reed Smith. We look forward to your participation.

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

Although it will be published in the Federal Register shortly, you can download and read the text of the Federal Trade Commission’s  revised "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" issued earlier today, right on Legal Bytes now. As reported previously in Legal Bytes, the final revisions are intended to update the FTC’s guidance, last revised in 1980, that provide advice to advertisers and agencies regarding compliance with the FTC Act.

While the prior guidelines allowed advertisers to use a “results not typical” disclaimer, that is no longer a safe haven from liability, and advertisers will be required to disclose what a consumer should generally expect when purchasing or using the product. Furthermore, any connection that a consumer might not reasonably know between an advertiser and an endorser needs to be disclosed. In recent years, comments by bloggers, through word of mouth, buzz or viral marketing were never addressed in the Guides. The updated version now deals with and provides examples of when these rise to a level of connection requiring disclosure.. For example, if a blogger receives any consideration in cash or in kind (e.g., free gaming console to try) to review products or services, that would now be considered an endorsement that requires disclosure – even if the review remains unbiased. 

The fact that a consumer should be informed about a material connection between the advertiser and the maker of the statements is now firmly embedded in the FTC Guides, even though these cases were always subject to review on a case-by-case basis. Of course, what constitutes a “material” connection will still be subject to a factual determination, but if a company, for example, sponsors research about its products or services (or potentially about the products or services of a competitor, if the results will be used in a comparative ad), then the company must disclose its sponsorship in the ad. Similarly, although consumers may expect celebrities to be paid for appearing in commercials, if an endorsement is made outside that context – for example, on a talk show, at a book signing, at a motion picture premiere, or on Facebook, Twitter or other social media - any material relationships must be disclosed.

The proposed new guidelines were the subject of a seminar, "Trust Me, I'm a Satisfied Customer: Testimonials & Endorsements in the United States", presented by Joseph I. Rosenbaum, at the University of Limerick in July. You can go to the previous Legal Bytes blog post and download a copy of the presentation at any time.  "

Want to know more about the FTC Guides, or the implications to social media advertising and marketing, or traditional advertising? Feel free to contact me or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

If you missed our teleseminar “Global Regulation of Behavioral Marketing in an Age of Privacy & Data Protection,” presented by Reed Smith partners Douglas J. Wood and Joseph I. Rosenbaum from New York and Gregor Pryor from London, I am pleased to make a copy of the “Are You Behaving Badly” presentation available to our Legal Bytes’ readers. The industry gave us “New Hope.” Privacy and consumer advocacy groups responded, and the “Empire Strikes Back.” Just recently, Congress commended the self-regulatory efforts of the industry, but noted a perceived need for additional legislation. “The Phantom Menace” persists.

The intergalactic battles continue, battle lines remain drawn, tensions remain high and the balance unclear – perhaps because changing technology, social media norms and advertising models keep rewriting the rules of engagement. If you listened in, thank you. If you missed it, here is the presentation. In either case, don’t hesitate to contact any of us with questions.

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

Late last week, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, released a statement indicating that despite industry collaboration and efforts at self-regulation, his belief is that government regulation remains necessary. Rep. Boucher intends to introduce legislation, regulating online behavioral advertising. His statement notes that the intention would be “to assure Internet users a high degree of privacy protection, including transparency about the collection, use and sharing of information about them and to give them control over that collection, use and sharing,” and that the advertising industry’s self-regulatory principles, “while proactive . . . . do not go far enough.”

In deference to the industry, however, Rep. Boucher’s statement also acknowledges that “online advertising supports much of the commercial content, applications and services that are available to Internet users today without charge,” and mentions that the intention of any legislation is not to disrupt well-established business models. The announcement asserts the legislation will have bipartisan support, and although it notes that actual draft legislation is not yet ready for prime time, it will be targeted primarily at privacy concerns, seeking to establish baseline standards relating to the disclosure, collection and use of consumer information, and safe harbors for advertisers that adhere to certain online practices in connection with these issues. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission will be given the authority to enforce the principles in the legislation and define the specific policies and practices that would allow advertisers to take advantage of the proposed safe harbor protections.

You can read all of Rep. Boucher’s statement right here. Fittingly, there is still time to register for tomorrow’s teleseminar “Are You Behaving Badly”, sponsored by the Advertising Technology & Media law practice at Reed Smith.

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

Earlier today the Federal Trade Commission announced details of the first of a series of Public Roundtables being held to deal with continuing efforts to examine, evaluate and determine if, and to what extent, regulation may be needed in connection with consumer privacy. In its announcement, the FTC specifically cites its intention to review privacy practices related to social networking, cloud computing, online behavioral advertising, mobile marketing, and the collection and use of information by retailers, data brokers and third-party applications.

The FTC’s announcement acknowledges the beneficial uses of information and technological innovation, while seeking to balance those against the need to protect consumer privacy. The first full-day session will be held Monday, December 7, 2009, at the FTC Conference Center at 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., and no registration is required. Those who cannot attend in person are welcome to go to FTC.gov and will be able to view the proceedings as a webcast.

The FTC has invited individuals and organizations to participate and/or to suggest topics. To participate, your request can be submitted directly to the FTC by email sent to privacyroundtable@ftc.gov on or before October 30^th, and comments surrounding the issues to be discussed can be submitted on or before November 6^th. The FTC has prepared a list of specific questions it intends to use in opening the dialog at this first in its series of public roundtable discussions and has invited written comments, as well as research submissions. Details can be found at the Privacy Roundtable Workshop page of the FTC’s website. Comments can be mailed to the FTC, or you can check the FTC website for instructions as to submitting comments electronically. Of course, Reed Smith stands ready to assist clients in preparing comments or providing representation, and if we can be of assistance, don’t hesitate to contact us. If you need to know more, please feel free to call me or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

This post was written by Adam Snukal and Joseph Rosenbaum.

Well, here it is. A summary of the last of the seven principles contained in the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles released 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 seven principles are:

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

The Accountability principle is the one concerned with the “effect,” rather than the “cause” and calls upon the industry to establish and implement programs to monitor its online behavioral advertising activities and take steps to ensure compliance with the principles within a self-regulatory framework. In the context of the self-regulatory principles, Accountability means – monitoring, transparency, reporting and compliance.

• Monitoring: Both random and systematic, depending on the circumstances;
• Transparency: Widely available, easy to use communication tools and channels so that the public, competitors and government agencies can file complaints when the Principles are violated;
• Reporting: Violators will be publicly reported, including the reason for a finding of violation, a description of the violation, and the actions taken in response to, and to correct, the non-compliance; and
• Compliance: The establishment of mechanisms and procedures to bring any publicly-reported entity into compliance with the principles, or, if necessary, to refer the violation to the appropriate government agency.  

The Accountability principle also notes the importance of coordination and consistency among programs to promote efficiencies in implementation, so as to avoid multiple enforcement actions against the same entity for the same violation. 

While the blueprint for the specifics surrounding the proposed monitoring, transparency, reporting and compliance initiatives under this principle are yet to be drawn, the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) and National Advertising Review Council of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (“CBBB”), have agreed to cooperate and collaborate, with the stated goal of having something in place by early 2010. Both the DMA and the CBBB were called upon to provide leadership in this area because of their widely respected existing self-regulatory accountability programs. The DMA also has agreed to integrate the principles into its longstanding DMA Self-Regulatory and Compliance Tools.

If you would like to read the entire “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” report now, in its entirety, just follow the link, but stay tuned for next week, when we will post a short consolidated summary of all seven principles and you can always read the entire “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” report here. So now, as always, if you have any questions or need help, please feel free to contact Adam Snukal or me, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

On Wednesday, September 30, 2009, from 12 noon – 1 p.m. (U.S. EDT), Reed Smith will be hosting a teleseminar as part of its “Doing Business Globally” series. Entitled Global Regulation of Behavioral Marketing, this seminar will be presented by Reed Smith partners Douglas J. Wood and Joseph I. Rosenbaum from New York, and Gregor Pryor from London. The seminar will explore the legal implications to advertisers, marketing professionals and brands associated with the labyrinth of global regulation increasingly applicable, or newly enacted, in connection with the targeting of consumers — on and off the web — through behavioral marketing.

Privacy and consumer groups object to such sophisticated techniques, fearful it further erodes what little privacy protection remains. Regulators are concerned such practices may violate privacy and data protection laws, or worse, are simply not covered by existing law and regulation. Marketers respond that such advances allow for a far more efficient, consumer-friendly marketplace, and that self-regulation has been a successful model in the advertising industry for more than 30 years. In this interconnected, networked age of social networking and global communication, understanding the implications and the legal and regulatory landscape is critical for every advertising professional and marketer, and the brands they represent. The camps remain far apart. Advertising industry associations call for self-regulation, recently releasing a report entitled Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising. Only about two months later, as previously reported in Legal Bytes, a coalition of 10 consumer advocacy and privacy groups released a fresh call for new regulation in a report referred to as a Legislative Primer, entitled Online Behavioral Tracking and Targeting Concerns and Solutions. The dividing lines remain drawn, tensions remain high, and the balance unclear – perhaps because the technology environment keeps rewriting the rules of engagement. Want to know more? Don’t miss this informative presentation.

Join us for this exciting and timely Reed Smith Teleseminar. You can view the Invitation to obtain more information, or go right to the Registration page. We look forward to your participation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

This post was written by Anthony S. Traymore and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

Almost down to the wire, here is the next installment summarizing the sixth of the seven principles contained in the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles released 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. For reference, the seven enumerated principles are:

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

The Sensitive Data principle segments sensitive data into two basic categories - personal information of children under the age of 13, and financial and health-related information, regardless of the age of the individual.

The Sensitive Data principle segments sensitive data into two basic categories - personal information of children under the age of 13, and financial and health-related information, regardless of the age of the individual.

With respect to the collection and use of data for online behavioral marketing purposes, if you have actual knowledge that any of the information being collected is from individuals under the age of 13, or if your website is targeted at children under the age of 13, the Sensitive Data principle states you should not be collecting any personal information from or be engaged in any online behavioral advertising with regard to that individual, unless you comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and then, only to the extent specifically allowed by COPPA.

In case you’ve forgotten, COPPA requires you to have "verifiable parental consent" prior to collecting any personal data from children under the age of 13. The Federal Trade Commission routinely enforces COPPA, and violations may carry fines in excess of $1 million, in addition to the damage to goodwill and public image that can result. Compliance with the provisions of COPPA is tricky. While this post will not belabor the ambiguities that have already been reported about what constitutes "verifiable parental consent", suffice it to say that when dealing with children under the age of 13, it is best to exercise considerable caution in connection with online marketing efforts – behavioral or otherwise – and to always consult an attorney well-versed in guiding you through the compliance maze.

With respect to personal information related to an individual’s financial or health status, age is not relevant to this sixth principle. What is relevant is the requirement that you obtain the consent of the individual if you are collecting the information online and you intend to use it. Prudent practice would indicate you should affirmatively obtain the individual’s consent in advance – whether during the process of registration, through formal acceptance of terms of use that clearly solicit consent, or through any other means. Clearly, if you plan to share this information with third parties in connection with online behavioral marketing efforts, you should indicate that to the individual. In all cases, the principle notes that you should always provide the individual with the right and an option, at any time, to opt-out of the use of his or her information for such purposes.

As mentioned, this is the sixth of the seven principles being highlighted, but if you would like to read the entire “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” report now, in its entirety, just follow the link. Legal Bytes will be bringing you a summary of the remaining principle next week. And now, as always, if you have any questions or need help, please feel free to contact Anthony S. Traymore or me, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

This post was written by Adam Snukal and Joseph Rosenbaum.

As previously reported in Legal Bytes, it seems that not everyone is satisfied with the Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising recently promulgated by several leading advertising associations. A group of 10 consumer and privacy advocacy organizations (i.e., Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Lives, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy Times, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and The World Privacy Forum called on Congress earlier this week to enact legislation in response to what they feel are genuine threats to privacy arising from online behavioral tracking and targeting.

The guiding principles the coalition wants Congress to follow in its enactment of privacy legislation are substantively contained in the following Fair Information Practices (“FIP”), which the coalition claims has been the foundation of U.S. privacy policies for decades: collection limitations, data quality, purpose specification/communication, use limitation, security safeguards, appropriate openness, individual participation and knowledge rights, accountability, and redress. FIP was coined by a U.S. government advisory committee in 1973 in response to the use of automated data systems that contained information about individuals. The U.S. Privacy Act of 1974 established a code of fair information practices, and the FTC refers to these practices in a report entitled, Privacy Online: Fair Information Practices in the Electronic Marketplace (May 2000).

A sample of the principles contained in the coalition’s Legislative Primer, entitled Online Behavioral Tracking and Targeting Concerns and Solutions, includes:

• A definition of “sensitive information,” along with guidelines as to the kinds of data that should not be collected or used for behavioral tracking/targeting
• A prohibition on the collection or use of data from anyone under the age of 18
• The right of an individual to obtain access to his/her personal or behavioral data
• Personal and behavioral data collected must be relevant for the purposes for which they are to be used
• A private right of action given to each individual whose data is collected and tracked, along with liquidated damages and appropriate federal/state regulation and oversight

Given the July release of self-regulatory principles, crafted and widely embraced by the advertising industry, with explicit support for self-regulation from the FTC itself, and three decades of successful self-regulation in the advertising industry (guided by the Council of Better Business Bureaus), it is not clear why a spokesperson for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse would take the position that “The record is clear: self-regulation doesn’t work. It is time for Congress to step in and codify the principles into law.” Or why a spokesperson for Consumer Watchdog commented: “We’ve seen in industry after industry what happens when the fox is left to guard the chicken coop – consumers lose.”

With Congressman Boucher (D-Va.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, indicating that his Subcommittee intends to visit this issue in the fall, it is not clear whether Congress will allow the industry and the FTC an opportunity to give self-regulation time to work, or if a perceived need to “do something” and change the status quo remains. One thing has not changed: the positions of the industry and consumer and privacy advocacy groups.

Legal Bytes will keep you posted on developments in this area as they evolve, but if you need help or want further information, feel free to contact Adam Snukal, me, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)
• Share Link

Here is the fifth in our installments of summarizing the seven principles contained in the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles released 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, For reference, the seven enumerated principles are:

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

The Material Changes principle requires an organization engaged in behavioral advertising to obtain consent before applying any material changes to its existing online behavioral advertising policies and practices – specifically, to the data collection-and-use policies and practices that apply to data collected prior to the effective date of any material change to these policies and practices.

This principle also makes it clear that a change in policy or practice that would result in less data collection or more restrictive use of the data (i.e., less or more restrictive use of the data than existing usage) is NOT a material change that would require prior consent. This makes sense considering that the purpose of the principle, when coupled with Transparency and Consumer Control, is not to merely give consumers an absolute right to consent or to reject any and all changes, but only those that would broaden, deepen or alter in an expansive or materially different manner, the existing collection-and-use practices of the organization. If a change would result in less data being collected or more constrained use of the data being collected, a consumer would likely be notified of the change, but consent would not be required.

Legal Bytes will be bringing you a summary of the remaining two principles in the next week. And now, as always, if you have any questions or need help, please feel free to contact me or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)
• Share Link

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, recently released its Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles. When we announced these principles, we also promised to provide you with a bit more detail regarding each of these principles, which are listed below; so here is a brief summary of the fourth – Data Security. For reference, the seven enumerated principles are:

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

The Data Security principle requires entities to provide reasonable security for, and limited retention of, data collected and used for online behavioral advertising purposes. Consistent with the FTC standard, entities must maintain appropriate physical, electronic and administrative safeguards based upon the sensitivity of the data. Further, data collected and used may not be retained any longer than necessary to fulfill a legitimate business need (e.g., testing and auditing) or as required by law. In addition, the principle sets forth the steps that service providers (e.g., entities that provide Internet service, toolbars, web browsers or comparable desktop applications) must take in connection with data collection and use, including alteration, anonymization or randomization (e.g., hashing) of personally identifiable information; enhanced notice and disclosure at the time the data is collected; and the protection of the non-identifiable nature of data shared with non-affiliates. Under the Data Security principle, service providers will be held accountable for compliance with these principles in connection with their collection and use of data for online behavioral advertising purposes. Thanks to Stacy Marcus for her analysis.

We can now also report to you that yesterday a coalition of 10 consumer and privacy advocacy groups (i.e., Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Lives, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy Times, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and The World Privacy Forum, has released a draft of their own principles, in the form of a Legislative Primer, entitled Online Behavioral Tracking and Targeting Concerns and Solutions. Legal Bytes will have a more detailed report for you on this new development in the next day or two, and in the meantime – or any time – feel free to contact me, Stacy Marcus, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)
• Share Link

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 . . .

Continue Reading...

• 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.

Continue Reading...

• 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

Last week, rumors started spreading that Facebook had changed its policy and was now allowing third-party advertisers to use your photos (i.e., images users post onto Facebook) without permission. The flap over the use of Facebook user-profile photos in advertising came into the limelight when a man, using a third-party application, saw an advertisement displayed for an online dating website, and much to his surprise—it happened to include a picture of his wife. There’s Good, Bad & Ugly.

Good news: His wife wasn’t out looking for a date. Bad news: The photo emanated from a Facebook profile photo available to companies that use the Facebook platform ad network. Ugly news: You could be next!

So here’s the scoop:

Facebook has not changed its policy and does not allow the use of your photo(s) without permission. Facebook had previously suspended two ad networks from the Facebook platform for deceptive practices and user complaints. Those ad networks were said to be using third-party applications in which these photos were embedded and, according to Facebook, that violates Facebook’s privacy policy; and the ads were misleading since they made it look as if someone’s Facebook friend had taken action when they really had not. Facebook itself issued a statement noting, “We are as concerned as many of you are about any potential threat to your experience on Facebook and the protection of your privacy. That’s why we prohibit ads on Facebook Platform that cause a bad user experience, are misleading, or otherwise violate our policies.” 

Although some Facebook users might not know it, Facebook has been running ads from its own ad system for more than a year—it lets your Facebook friends know of any direct connections you have with products and services. So if you become a "fan" of a Facebook Page, your Facebook friends might see an advertisement showing both the action you took (becoming a fan) and your profile photo along with the ad. According to Facebook, it will only do this when a Facebook user has taken some affirmative action indicating a connection with the product or service being advertised. Facebook also claims no data is shared with third parties in this process.

The best we can determine, Facebook technically only allows any user content to display in or with third-party advertising if the content isn’t being cached. While Facebook likely tries to control these networks, some obviously are not adhering to this policy, with photos then appearing not only on third-party ad networks within Facebook when they haven’t been authorized, but also in some cases outside the Facebook domain itself.

If you are a Facebook user and have actually read (and understood) its Terms and Privacy Policy, which is part of the Facebook Principles, you might know that Facebook ad networks can use these user photos in ads—they just can’t do so in violation of their privacy policy or in a deceptive manner. While clearly Facebook has an interest in keeping users comfortable with the online social media environment it has created, it will likely either do a better job of disclosing and explaining the potential uses that may be made of user information (including images, connections, and the like), or it will need to monitor and control the use of its advertising platform by third-party advertising networks that are allowed to use the platform.

Every user on Facebook is opted-in to allowing the use of their photos as described above, by default, when they sign up. Perhaps part of the flap is the fact that many users may simply have not known this. Or perhaps there's a disclosure or communication problem within the community. Facebook might also provide more visible or multiple ways of enabling users to opt-out of this feature or create more refined privacy settings so that users are given more options and more information that allows them to control the use of their photos (and other information), certainly outside and potentially inside the Facebook social media community. Most users simply may have had no clue this was the default or that this was happening. Even when they realize this is occurring, many can’t figure out how to change the settings. Currently, the only way to fix the problem is to have users change the privacy settings that are found under “Settings,” “Privacy Settings,” “Newsfeeds and Wall”; looking for the tab that says “Facebook Ads”; and re-setting your “Appearance in Facebook Ads” preference to “No One.”

HOWEVER, just so everyone is clear—this still may not opt you out of Facebook ads displayed to your friends with your photo when you expressly take action within Facebook (e.g., becoming a "fan"), but it will opt you out of third-party network ads. That said, it remains to be seen how Facebook will deal with the delicate reality of handling third-party ad networks that aren’t Facebook affiliates, since these represent a significant source of revenue for creators of Facebook applications. 

To put it more simply, if you provide a third-party application with the right to access your information (which you generally need to do in order to use the application), then technically the advertising networks can access that information, too. That’s why users should pay attention to the applications they add, and get rid of applications they are no longer using. You can do this through the “Settings” menu as well. Head for the “Application Settings” page, and if you see a menu that says “Recently Used,” change it to “Authorized” and you will see the applications you have approved with an “X.” Just click to remove those you no longer wish to have authorization. That way, you won’t wind up as a poster child for some product or service that you did not and would not ever intend to endorse.* 

If you need to know more, please contact Joseph I. Rosenbaum at jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com, or you can view his bio at reedsmith.com. Of course, you can always contact your favorite Reed Smith attorney, who will be more than happy to help you. 

* Speaking of endorsements, Joseph I. Rosenbaum was actually speaking of Endorsements (and Testimonials) at a recent CLE Conference in Ireland, sponsored and hosted by the School of Law at Limerick University and previously featured in Legal Bytes. A copy of Joe’s presentation (without the embedded videos) has been posted in .PDF format in an update to the previous posting.

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

This post was written by Adam Snukal.

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), hadn’t been on the job even two months when she found herself a defendant in a class-action lawsuit brought in the Southern District of New York. A registered nurse had brought the action against Ms. Sebelius, as well as the White House Office of Health Reform Director and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, alleging that certain provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) violate privacy rules central to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the federal Privacy Act.

The suit claims that pursuant to the ARRA, the development and implementation of a new health care information technology system that will create an electronic medical records database by 2014 will include Americans who are not covered by either Medicare or Medicaid (according to the lawsuit, Medicare and Medicaid only cover approximately 23 percent of the American population). This system, according to the complaint, poses a major threat to individual privacy, placing individuals’ personal health information “just a mouse click away from being accessible to an intruder.”

The action takes issue with ARRA’s provision allowing HHS to determine what constitutes the “minimum necessary” amount of personal health information allowed to be disclosed under HIPAA. According to the suit, "This technology will be used to deprive the Plaintiff and others of their fundamental right to privacy by requiring that their medical records be released by their health care providers and upon entry into the Health Information Technology maintained under the supervision of the Secretary will be made available without the permission of the Plaintiff to an unknown and potentially unlimited number of persons.” The action seeks an injunction to prevent distribution of payments for the purchasing of the electronic health care systems.

The standard of “minimum necessary” is a central tenet of the HIPAA laws, which require that when a health care provider uses or discloses personal health information, or requests personal health information from others, the provider must undertake reasonable efforts to limit itself to “the minimum necessary amount of PHI to accomplish the intended purpose of the use, disclosure, or request.” Under this standard, providers must develop policies and procedures that limit information uses, disclosures and requests to those necessary to carry out the organization's work. That includes identification of those within the provider’s workforce that need access to carry out their duties, and reasonable efforts to limit access accordingly. HHS has been clear that the minimum necessary standard that health care providers are required to follow calls for the employment of a "reasonableness" analysis, so that a provider’s functions are not unduly restricted.

Few elements of HIPAA have generated more controversy than this standard, but if this court elects to embrace that standard, the likelihood of the success of this action on its merits may seem remote. HIPAA places a heavy emphasis on maintaining the privacy of an individual’s personal health information, and if the ARRA regulations applicable to the manner by which health information electronic systems are permitted to collect and share personal health information are consistent with HIPAA’s standard of reasonableness, there will be a substantial burden of proof for the plaintiffs to overcome.

If you need to know, you need to contact Adam Snukal at asnukal@reedsmith.com —or you can always contact your favorite Reed Smith attorney who will be more than happy to help you. 

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

“Advertising Law in the United States and Europe: The Challenges Ahead” is the subject of a CLE Conference organized and sponsored by the University of Limerick Law School and the Franklin Pierce Law School that is being held July 24 and 25 in Limerick, Ireland (Limerick is 20 minutes from Shannon). Douglas J. Wood and Joseph I. Rosenbaum, Co-Chairs of Reed Smith’s global Advertising Technology & Media Law Group, are among the distinguished faculty, which includes some of our clients, as well as scholars and government leaders from both sides of the Atlantic.

What’s more, these institutions have graciously agreed to allow us to invite our clients to attend at no charge. Yes, you read correctly. Free! Now you must be a client to take advantage of this promotional offer, and although you will have to pay your own way to join us and stay for the two-day course, what better time and excuse to visit Ireland? Yes, it’s short notice, but airfares are favorable, and if you are in Europe you literally have no excuse not to get away and take advantage of this great opportunity. Just click to learn more about the Agenda, the Faculty, the University of Limerick Law School, where the conference will be held; or nearby accommodations. Being a client does have its privileges, so if you are interested, email either Doug Wood or Joe Rosenbaum as soon as possible to take advantage of this opportunity. And start making your travel arrangements now!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we reported previously, Facebook announced the availability of a personalized Facebook URLs, raising serious issues — yet another example of technology colliding with traditional intellectual property laws. In this case, laws intended to protect trademarks and brand names. If you followed the news, the promotional momentum created by Facebook's offer has made every astute brand owner ponder the implications! While you, of course, should look at my previous Legal Bytes post on Personalized URLs, if you missed the informative one-hour seminar on the subject presented by Douglas J. Wood and myself, Co-Chairs of the Reed Smith Advertising Technology & Media Law Group, you can find it here: “Facebook Personalized URLs: Titanic Brand Opportunity or Tip of an Iceberg?”

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

Last week, Facebook announced the availability of a personalized Facebook URLs. This latest offering from Facebook raises serious issues—issues that are typically encountered when technology collides with traditional intellectual property laws intended to protect trademarks and brand names. Much like the confusion and abuse that proliferated when cybersquatting became rampant over the ownership and administration of domain names, we now have social networks and service providers allowing users to generate content and offering customized URLs within their domains in a digital and borderless world. Significantly, the promotional momentum created by Facebook's offer has caused every astute brand and trademark owner to ponder whether they should be in a rush to register their personalized URL on Facebook, or let it ride and deal with potential infringements when—and if—they occur! You need practical guidance and insightful approaches to these problems.

The Media & Entertainment Industry Team and the Advertising Technology & Media Law Group at Reed Smith have put together an informative one-hour teleseminar entitled “Facebook Personalized URLs: Titanic Brand Opportunity or Tip of an Iceberg?” airing on Tuesday, June 23 at 12 p.m. EDT with partners Doug Wood and Joe Rosenbaum, to help you understand the issues, formulate an approach and make informed decisions and you are invited to participate. Participation is free, although long-distance telephone charges apply outside of the United States, the UK, France, and Germany, where 800 numbers are used. Don’t miss this call!

Call-in ports are limited, so please click here to register or contact Anna Kazachkov at akazachkov@reedsmith.com no later than Monday, June 22, to receive a dial-in number and a passcode. If you require additional information, you can contact Anna by telephone directly at +1.212.702.1399.

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

On Tuesday, June 9, the popular social networking website, Facebook, announced that on Saturday, June 13 at 12:01 a.m. U.S. EDT, it will allow its registered users, subject to certain criteria and qualifications, to create personalized URLs for profiles and pages on Facebook (e.g., http://www.Facebook.com/insertyournamehere.   Currently, a user’s Facebook URL consists of the Facebook.com URL followed by numbers (e.g., http://www.facebook.com/profiles.Php?349485).

Allowing users to register personalized names on the web raises, among other things, infringement issues under federal and state trademark and related intellectual property laws, particularly for owners of well-known brands. Any registration process creates fears of cyber squatting and other attempts to hijack trademarks and brand names. Sometimes these fears are well founded; other times they are not. You may have already received bulletins from law firms and bloggers eager to alert you to the fact that Facebook has also announced it has created an online submission form that allows owners of registered trademarks to notify them of their IP rights. Ostensibly, Facebook intends to use the information submitted to preclude others from attempting to use registered marks in personalizing their URLs on Facebook.

While we applaud advising clients and friends of this development, we believe the matter is considerably more complicated than previous briefs and hasty reports may indicate. As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail, and the information below will give you a deeper look at the issues before racing to submit notifications of your IP rights to Facebook.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

We previously reported its progress in Legal Bytes and last week, President Obama signed into law the Credit Card Act of 2009. Although the bulk of the Act (and the bulk of the publicity surrounding its enactment and passage) deals with credit cards, it also amends the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and implements federal regulation of general use pre-paid cards, gift certificates and store (retail) gift cards. The new law is scheduled to take effect Aug. 21, 2010, and substantively deals with dormancy fees (so-called “inactivity” or service fees) and expiration dates. 

In the area of dormancy or inactivity fees, the new law prohibits them unless there has been no activity for 12 months. In addition, in order to impose any such fees, certain disclosures must be made to the consumer prior to purchase. The new law also prohibits expiration dates of less than five years, and requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of the expiration date, if any. In addition, gift certificates issued as part of an award, loyalty or promotional program (i.e., no money or other consideration is given) are, as is the case with many state laws, excluded. And speaking of state laws, the Act specifically does not pre-empt state laws that provide greater consumer protection. 

What else should you know. First, plastic cards and payment code devices used solely for telephone services or that are reloadable, are not marketed or labeled as gift cards or certificates, not marketed to the general public, and issued in paper form only (including those that apply to tickets and events), are not covered by the requirements of the new Act.  Second, the law authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the FTC, to develop requirements concerning the amount of dormancy fees that can be charged (only once each month), and to more carefully seek to define which provisions of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E apply in this context. 

So, for states that have had no, or lesser, consumer protections, the Act clearly establishes a minimum federal threshold for the imposition of dormancy fees and the prohibition of expiration dates earlier than five years. For states that already have or may yet impose more stringent requirements, those requirements are specifically permitted under the Act, so you will still have to keep track of state requirements in this area. 

If you need to know, you need to contact Keri Bruce or Joseph Rosenbaum – or your favorite Reed Smith attorney – who will be more than happy to help you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Although consumer credit regulation is hardly new – Regulation E, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Regulation Z and laws regulating disclosures, debt collection practices, billing statements and the like have been around for decades – for the first time in U.S. history, Federal legislation is tackling pricing, rate modifications, advertising disclosures and fees, and adding a gift card angle as well. 

While the House has not yet passed this or any other version of the legislation, those in the know believe a similar, if not identical, bill will be approved by the House of Representatives and that the President is likely to sign it. 

Are you a bank, payment card association, credit union or financial institution that issues credit cards or gift cards? Here are highlights of the bill that passed the Senate:

• When marketing, a card issuer would not be permitted to increase any advertised ‘teaser’ rates for at least a year after a new account was opened for the consumer, and promotional rates advertised to consumers must remain in effect for at least six month;
• Unless the credit-issuing institution can get proof that anyone under 21 can actually repay their credit card debt, credit cards can only be issued to individuals under the age of 21 if a parent, legal guardian or guarantor agrees in writing to be responsible for the debts;
• If a consumer pays more than the minimum balance due, the excess must be applied to the balance with the highest interest rate;
• Card issuers will not be allowed to change rates retroactively on existing balances (there is an exception where the consumer is past due by 60 days – which, I guess, presumes that when a consumer can’t afford to pay their balance within 60 days, it’s ok to raise their rates since they probably won’t be able to afford to pay a higher rate either);
• Bills for balances due must be sent at least three weeks (21 days) before their due date;
• Card issuers will no longer be able to charge additional fees to consumers for alternate payment mechanisms (e.g., by mail, telephone, online, electronic, wire transfers), unless the consumer requests and the issuer offers some type of ‘expedited’ service;
• Consumers must be asked if they want to allow ‘over-limit’ credit transactions and if they do not affirmatively consent, the card issuer will not be permitted to charge a fee if the issuer still authorizes the transaction (e.g., your credit limit is $1,000 and you charge something for $1,001 and the authorization system approves the transaction anyway);
• Changes in the terms and conditions that apply to consumer cardholders will require at least 45 days’ notice; and
• The minimum amount of time a gift card must remain valid for use will be 5 years. First, it is likely this will apply to gift cards that are consumer-oriented and where full value is paid, and not to discounted, bulk sales, non-consumer, incentive, employer or promotional gift cards – but then the legislation isn’t final yet, is it? Furthermore, the Federal legislation is not likely to preempt more consumer-friendly State law (e.g., California prohibits any expiration date on such gift cards), but it will place a minimum level of consumer protection against earlier expiration, even in States that have no applicable regulation.

There is also consideration being given to removing any current legal and contractual restrictions on merchants that would allow them to differentially price their products and services based on the incremental costs (or savings) of accepting different forms of payment. When credit and debit cards were scarce and cash was king (cash, as in ‘currency’), regulation and industry groups frowned upon differential pricing, arguing that allowing a merchant to charge more for the use of a credit card was discriminatory to the consumer – even though the cost of accepting such payment instruments was higher (the merchant pays a fee (discount rate) to the card-issuing enterprise for the privilege of accepting the particular brand of card). Furthermore, the growth of corporate and purchasing cards and the use of payment instruments in B2B transactions has resulted in situations where a manufacturer accepts a purchasing card (procurement-based credit card) in payment of sales to distributors, wholesalers and retailers – a fee is charged to the manufacturer for the card transaction. This chain continues until a consumer makes a retail purchase, and if any or all of these transactions involve branded payment instruments and not cash, travelers’ checks, bearer bonds or two goats and a chicken, today, a fee would most likely accrue on each payment-card transaction at each step of the way . . . significantly raising the cost to everyone and ultimately the consumer. Stay tuned.

So: Consumer Credit? Co-branded promotions? Loyalty Rewards Programs? Gift Cards? Premiums and Incentives? Retail Promotions? Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standards? Privacy & Data Protection? Identity Theft? Data Breach? Pre-Screening? Online Digital Payment Systems? Corporate Cards? Purchasing Cards? E-Commerce? Regulation E? Regulation Z? Statement Insert Advertising; Credit/Demographic Market Segmentation? Free? APR? Limited Time Offer?

Any of these sound familiar? It’s what we do? Our Advertising Technology & Media Law Group; our Financial Institutions Group; our Data Security and Identity Theft Group . . . need we say more . . . If you need help (or you are just over stimulated by the flurry of legislation, regulation and excitement), call us or email me at jrosenbaum@reedsmith.com. We can help.

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

The European Commission established a Data Protection Working Party on data protection and privacy—an independent advisory body set up under the Data Protection Directive. This Working Party recently published an opinion relating to the EC’s draft standard contract terms that apply to the movement of data across national borders, notably between Member States within and outside of the EU. 

Specifically, the Working Party recommended that the Commission develop brand new model contract provisions to deal with international and multi-national data processing involving transfers of data outside the EC—a long-standing sore point among companies in countries that have historically been viewed as having "inadequate" privacy and data protections. These model or standard contract terms would establish acceptable contractual protections between entities that control data within the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and data processors they use outside the European Community, to ensure protections are comparable.

Continue Reading...

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

Earlier today, the FTC staff issued a report concerning consumer protection issues arising in the mobile commerce marketplace. A copy of the full report, Beyond Voice, Mapping the Mobile Marketplace is available by clicking the link. The key findings in the report:

• Cost disclosures about mobile services continue to generate consumer complaints. The FTC staff intends to monitor cost disclosures, bring law enforcement actions, and work with industry to improve self-regulatory enforcement
• The FTC and its law enforcement partners should continue to monitor the impact on consumers of unwanted mobile text messages, malware and spyware, and take law enforcement action if and as needed
• Although spyware and malware are not yet significant problems on mobile devices, the FTC is encouraging development of strategies to prevent or minimize their spread, since the issue is likely to magnify as consumers increasingly use mobile devices for a wider range of applications, including Internet access
• Increasing use of smart phones to access the mobile Web presents unique privacy challenges, especially regarding children. The FTC will expedite regulatory review of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule to determine whether the rule should be modified to address changes in the mobile marketplace. This review was originally set for 2015, and will now begin in 2010 instead.

Given the numbers of wireless and mobile devices in the hands of individuals under the age of 18 (and 13), and the increasing proliferation of mobile devices, this will become a hotter topic in the months and years ahead. As if this point needed to be emphasized, it has been reported that as of January 2007—two years ago—there were approximately 800 million cars, 850 million personal computers, 1.5 billion television sets, but already 2.7 billion (yes, billion) wireless and mobile devices in use around the globe, with more than 800 million e-mail and 1.8 billion SMS text-messaging users.

The sheer numbers are staggering, and we are on top of this issue big time. Contact Joe Rosenbaum, John Feldman or Douglas Wood if you need more information or assistance.

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

Valuable insight in an insightful land.

Political leadership throughout the world is changing, nowhere more so than in the United States. With that will come major changes in regulation, at the local and federal levels or through voluntary compliance with industry standards. Member states in the EU find themselves struggling to respond to local concerns while maximizing their combined market strength. Globalized media and interactive technology are providing consumers worldwide with greater control and choice in what they experience. Local markets are now boundary-less - confounding attempts at local regulation. What are today’s rules? How should advertisers and their counsel respond to the merged but dissonant marketplace and how can they balance competing attempts at regulation in the United States and Europe?

If you are a lawyer looking for high quality CLE or an advertiser hoping to get a glimpse (or make sense) of the law – or if you just want to hear where rhyming is an art and a science, then come join some of the most experienced corporate counsel and outside practitioners in Limerick, Ireland for Advertising Law in the United States and Europe -- The Challenges Ahead sponsored by the Franklin Pierce Law Center and the University of Limerick. The course, being held at the end of July on the campus of the University of Limerick, a short distance from Shannon, Ireland will be as exciting and vibrant as the countryside. 

Faculty is comprised of professors, practitioners and government leaders from both sides of the Atlantic, including Douglas Wood of Reed Smith LLP. To register, go to piercelaw.edu. 

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

In a report entitled “Targeted Online Advertising” (La Publicité Ciblée en Ligne), presented in February and recently released publicly, the French data protection regulatory authority (CNIL) has expressed concern that targeted online advertising could be a conduit for the merchandising of personally identifiable information about online users. 

The CNIL has been examining context-sensitive, behavioral marketing and targeted advertising mechanisms online, and is concerned about privacy implications. The report notes that analyzing online user data for the purpose of serving more relevant advertising involves the collection of Internet protocol addresses, what websites a user arrived from or subsequently visited, and even key words entered by the user. In case you haven’t thought about it, definitions are hardly uniform in laws and regulations around the world, i.e., an IP address is considered personal data in the EU, but is not personally identifiable information in the United States. 

The report raises an alarm over what could be a means of “systematic profiling” and examines what it believes are growing risks to privacy in this context. In France, and many jurisdictions, targeted advertising must comply with the same data protection rules that apply to the use of personal data online. The French authorities have consistently maintained that users should be specifically informed about how their data will be used, and should be given the opportunity to opt out of these uses—even if it means they can no longer use the services available on the site.

The report also specifically notes that many free services on the Internet are actually subsidized by advertising. While “free” is an accurate financial description in a literal sense, consumers often don’t appreciate they are actually paying a “price”—the value of personal information provided in exchange for “free” services they receive online. 

While the report does not attempt to cover mobile or wireless advertising broadly, it does note that adding information about a user’s location through GPS and other technology, adds tracking capability that the CNIL fears will allow for even greater intrusion and profiling of individual behavior. You can read the entire CNIL report in French on their website at “La publicité ciblée en ligne” (Targeted Online Advertising).

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

Early on the morning of April 1, 2009, the Joint Policy Committee of the major advertising industry groups reached a tentative agreement on new contracts that will govern the compensation provided to actors represented by the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, through March 31, 2012. The agreements still need to be approved by the union boards and members, with voting expected by the middle of May. Leading the team representing the Joint Policy Committee was Reed Smith Partner Douglas J. Wood.

The basic terms call for an increase of about 5.1 percent in actors’ compensation over the next three years, and higher advertiser contributions to the unions’ health and retirement funds. However, over time, a limit on the contributions advertisers need to make to the unions’ pension and health benefits—up to the first $1 million of salary—will also go into effect.

The tentative accords include a slight increase in fees for commercials that run in new-media formats, but specifically set aside funds for a two-year study focused on examining and restructuring the compensation formulation for actors in commercials to a model whereby they would be paid based on number of viewers (i.e., ratings), and not merely on how many times the commercial airs. 

You can’t get any closer to the action than by talking to lawyers at Reed Smith. If you are an advertiser, an advertising agency, media executive, or anyone involved in commercial production, you need to talk to us. Call us now. We don’t just have the news – we are the news!

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

Rumor has it that Google will be launching its much-publicized "interest-based advertising" in April, allowing advertisers to serve ads based on a user's prior interactions (e.g., browsing the advertisers' websites, tracking interests). Google will track categories of web pages that users visit in Google's content network and if, for example, a user visits motion picture and film pages, Google may add them to a corresponding interest category that might be labeled "motion picture aficionado." As we understand it, Google will enable use of the DoubleClick DART cookie in advertising served on websites with AdSense for content advertising. Thus, when a user browses an AdSense publishers' site and views or clicks an ad, the user's browser may have a cookie added.

For you loyal Legal Bytes readers, that means you should review your online terms of use, terms of service, privacy policies and online disclosures to be sure they cover this activity if it applies to your web presence, advertising and marketing activities. If you will need to and you don't already take third-party ad servers into account, you may have to amend these to do so. 

As you know, Legal Bytes cannot provide legal advice (you have to be a client for that). Nor could we possibly advise without knowing the specifics about you, your situation, your jurisdiction(s), or the facts that apply. But consider the following sample (which assumes only non-personally identifiable information is collected) that illustrates the type of language one might consider:

We or our advertisers use third parties to serve advertising on our website and web pages when you visit or browse, and some of them use cookies or other technology to collect information about your visit. This information may be used to improve the operation of our website and enhance your experience as a visitor and user, and also to serve advertising about goods and services that might be of interest to you. No personally identifiable information (e.g., name, address, email or phone number) is collected this way or in this process.

Of course, you can add links or contact information for those who want more information, and you may even direct them to the applicable Google web page,or any other third-party ad-serving network’s corresponding page to either get more information, or learn how to opt out of or disable cookies.

Now go call the Reed Smith lawyer you normally deal with for help or contact me (Joseph I. Rosenbaum). We put together and advise companies in connection with their terms of service, privacy policies, and disclosures, and their online, wireless and web presence, all the time. How can we help you?

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

On March 3, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released a Notice of Inquiry to implement the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007 (“CSVA”), which directs the FCC to examine advanced parental control technologies that would be compatible with various communications devices and platforms.

Click here to read the full alert, written by Amy S. Mushahwar, Judith L. Harris, and John P. Feldman.

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

Reed Smith acts as counsel to many of the advertising industry’s leading trade and membership associations – The Association of National Advertisers, The Word of Mouth Marketing Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, to name only a few. As you may have notices, a recent Legal Bytes blog post noted that just last month the FTC supplemented its December 2007 “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” report. 

Well the FTC has been busy in re-examining it’s policies regarding testimonials and endorsements in this digital age. As previously reported in Legal Bytes, the FTC indicated it was revising it’s Testimonial and Endorsement Guides (the first time since the 1980s). Well comments have now been submitted and we strongly recommend that anyone in the advertising and marketing business take a look at some of them. In fact, to help you, Legal Bytes has a couple you can look at right now – Comments for The Association of National Advertisers and Comments for The Word of Mouth Marketing Association – and when you finish reading them ask yourself:

• Now that public comments are in, what do we think will happen?
• What is in front of the FTC that might affect its decision making?
• How would self-regulation differ from the way the FTC has been operating?
• What does the new FTC Chairman think about self-regulation?
• Do we expect the new administration to shift direction? If so, which way?
• How is all this likely to affect advertising and marketing using product placements, branded entertainment, blogs, consumer generated content, buzz, viral and word of mouth marketing?

If you need to know, you need to contact John Feldman, Douglas Wood or Joseph Rosenbaum - or your favorite Reed Smith attorney - who will be more than happy to help you.

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

FTC Releases Revised Ad Guidelines: Are New Marketing Practices in Your Wallet?

On February 12, 2009, the FTC supplemented its December 2007 “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” report, highlighting the FTC’s voluntary best practices for the behavioral advertising industry. While continuing to support self-regulation, that should not be taken as a vote of confidence for continuing the status quo. Change is in the air and you may well need to:

• develop more consumer education concerning behavioral advertising;
• develop internal privacy protections for anonymous data profiles;
• create opt-in notice mechanisms for collection of sensitive information; and
• create opt-in notice mechanisms for retroactive changes to privacy practices.

. . . and if you think your privacy policies are ok, as is, think again. The FTC has taken a broad brush to paint a picture of what it considers personally identifiable information (PII) and what ‘sharing’ of that information may require. Our experts Amy S. Mushahwar and John P. Feldman have written an alert that describes what you need to know in more detail. To read the full alert, with links to the FTC releases, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

This post was written by Judith L. Harris.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in a case with potentially wide-ranging implications for anyone engaged in the online dissemination of news (Associated Press v. All Headline News Corp., et al., 08 Civ. 323 (PKC). In denying a motion to dismiss the suit, the court cleared the way for a possible showdown between old and new media. 

The lawsuit by AP stems from an allegation that AHN enlisted “poorly paid individuals” to cull the Internet for news, including AP stories, and then either rewrote or cut-and-pasted those stories and disseminated them to the websites of its own paying customers in the form of news reports and breaking news, thereby freeloading on the great effort expended, and great expense incurred, by “one of the world’s oldest and largest news organizations,” self-described as the “gold standard of objective journalism.”

This appears to be the first case to apply an old principle known as the “hot news” doctrine to Internet content. However, in this era of greatly reduced advertising and subscriber revenues, and life-or-death challenges for even the most venerable newspapers and other news-gathering organizations, it is not likely to be the last attack on alleged online “freeloaders.”

The “hot news” doctrine invoked by AP and relied on by the court goes back to a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court decision (International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215), which found breaking news to be “quasi property,” subject to protection from free-riding, or misappropriation, by competitors. In International News Service, the Supreme Court held that allowing one news agency to appropriate and profit from the work of another would “render publication profitless, or so little profitable as in effect to cut off the service by rendering the cost prohibitive in comparison with the return.” (Id. at 241.) As the Court explained, news gathering carries with it “the expenditure of labor, skill and money,” and its appropriation by another “is endeavoring to reap what it has not sown.” (Id. at 239-40.) 

Although the common law origins of this doctrine render it non-binding now in federal courts (where it has been preempted by the federal Copyright Act), the doctrine is still recognized in various states, including New York, the state law found by the court to govern AP’s claims. In New York, the court ruled, a cause of action for misappropriation of “hot news” remains viable and has not been preempted.

The court also allowed AP’s claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (for “intentionally altering or removing copyright management information”) and under New York State unfair competition common law to go forward, but dismissed two counts of AP’s complaint based on the Lanham Act (for trademark infringement and for unfair competition under the statute).

The court’s docket does not yet reflect when an answer will be due, but the case bears further monitoring by anyone engaged in the gathering and/or dissemination of news.

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

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) appears to have immunized Google from liability associated with advertisements placed through its “AdWords” program by some allegedly fraudulent mobile service providers. Because the allegations did not claim that Google was an “information content provider” itself, Google could take advantage of the statutory immunity granted by the CDA. That said, the federal court in San Jose did note that the plaintiff claimed Google assists customers in picking keywords and drafting AdWords, and if the plaintiff can amend its complaint and substantiate the fact that those activities constitute providing or creating content, this case may take a different turn. Let’s see how the cookie crumbles.

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

Facebook, the very informal and ostensibly open social network, hinting at an apology for what its CEO acknowledged were “overly formal and protective” Terms of Service, did an abrupt about-face recently, retracting them and reverting to its old Terms of Service—presumably reacting to a sea of complaints from just about everyone. Complaints? Over legal terms—does anyone still read them? Well, they do, and they didn’t like what they read—particularly the part that claimed unrestricted, perpetual ownership of your personal data, even if you decide to delete your entire account and go away. 

While we respect Facebook’s right to better manage, control, and disclose to consumers how and for what purpose it treats and handles personal data, it highlights a number of things the online world continues to teach us. First, don’t assume those innocuous changes buried somewhere in terms of service, terms of use, privacy policies, codes of conduct, rules of the road, or whatever you choose to call them, aren’t being scrutinized—by consumers, by your customers, by the media and, lest we forget, by regulators and legislators. While Facebook has not admitted it was caught a bit red-faced, it is taking your feedback in a “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” group to which you can contribute your thoughts. For those in the know, Facebook’s population has grown to more than 175 million users—does that make it the sixth-largest country in the world? Hmm, I wonder if that country has a growing budget deficit too; we’ll have to wait for the State of the Reunion speech, when results are posted, to find out.

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

Who would have thought that would refer to our financial system, real estate markets, building developers, technology providers and, lest we forget, automobile manufacturers. This was a year of challenge and change. America elected its first Afro-American President, who inherits a country involved in wars, economic turmoil of unprecedented proportions and a government tab increased by $1 trillion in the past 90 days. The NY Giants won the Super Bowl (and may do it again). The price of gasoline went from $2 a gallon to more than $4 a gallon to less than $1.50 a gallon this year, and the stock market experienced unprecedented swings, some days approaching 1,000 points; and fluctuations of anywhere from 200 to 600 points stopped being unusual—sometimes in the same day! No laughing matter, the Federal Reserve was doling out discount coupons for the purchase of investment banks, banks were buying brokerage houses, and non-banks were lining up to become regulated banks, just so they could share in the bail out fund. Indeed, the term “bail out,” once the domain of skydivers and sinking rowboats, became the most over-used word in the news (and in Congress). Speaking of domains, ICANN turned the world of domain names on its ear with its proposed Draft Applicant Guidebook (Legal Bytes; November 2008). Cyberwarfare no longer remained the domain of motion pictures like “War Games,” “Terminator” and “Matrix” when Georgian websites were under attack while Russians soldiers invaded the real Georgian sites. And speaking of Georgia, a court in the other state of Georgia upheld the validity of promotions held via SMS text messaging. Virtual worlds were in the news: divorces, theft of intellectual property, defamation, performance rights, even the murder of an avatar resulted in an arrest. “Green,” behavioral and children’s marketing, blogs, word of mouth and viral marketing occupied much of the discussion at the FTC; identity theft and data breaches continue to create privacy concerns; ad-blocking technology mounted an assault on interactive advertising; testimonials and endorsements created buzz, as did publicity rights, led by the estate of Marilyn Monroe (Legal Bytes; May 2008); a New York court decided that emails could amend a contract because they are “writings”; and the online, interactive video gaming industry, wireless advertising and content distribution, and the rise of processing platforms that serve as home computers, entertainment centers, Internet access and gaming portals—oh, and some are handheld and wireless. The fact that 2008 marked the 40th anniversary of the conception of the x86 device and the beginning of what we now know as personal computing—spawned by the obsession of a San Antonio engineer named Austin O. “Gus” Roche—and the 10th anniversary of the publication of my law journal article “Privacy on the Internet: Whose Information Is It Anyway?” went pretty much unnoticed.

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

For 2009, here are my predictions:

The economy and strife, regulation and surveillance will dominate the agenda, with the burden of paying for everything from wars to bailouts right in the crosshairs: watch those advertising budgets boys and girls, the taxman cometh.

Privacy and advertising, long separated by passive print, television and radio, will continue to collide—Congress will either pass ineffective and inappropriate legislation because it’s too busy to pay attention, or will defer legislation another year because it’s too busy to pay attention.

Wireless and mobile technology will continue to make us say “wow” and will continue to miniaturize our lives, putting not just communication, but also our wallets, calendars, purchasing, entertainment and working tool kits in our hands, not our laps.

The use of wireless and additional licenses, spectrum and bandwidth will bring the FCC and the FTC colliding in their zeal to regulate, and they will either cooperate because they are too busy to fight or fight because they are too busy to cooperate. In either case, regulation, re-regulation and self-regulation will continue to increase, unregulated.

Marketing, promotions, new media, digital content and distribution platforms will transform gaming and interactive play into entertainment, education and information—giving us more choices, but continuing to blur the lines between advertising, entertainment and information.

Continue Reading...

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

The FTC is seeking comments to its proposed revisions to the Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, last updated in 1980, and which define endorsements and testimonials: advertising messages reflecting opinions, beliefs, findings or experiences of someone other than the advertiser, and which consumers are likely to believe. The revisions propose changes to the way the FTC will interpret (and enforce) the Act:

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC is looking into regulations regarding disclosures for product placements and has been soliciting comments on its proposed changes. Should feature films produced for theatrical release and then aired on TV, and which have traditionally enjoyed an exemption from the sponsorship identification required of TV programming—have that exemption removed? should product placements be identified when the product is shown on screen? Should embedded advertising be completely prohibited in children’s programming? Increasing product placement and integration into programming has stimulated concern among consumer advocacy groups and Congressional legislators that the rules, many of which are decades old, do not address the new wave of advertising and promotion that has arisen as DVR technology and marketing has migrated away from the traditional “30-second spot.”

Continue Reading...

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

The U.S. Congress appears determined to investigate online advertising. Early this month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a letter to more than 30 companies, and what began as an inquiry into how Internet service providers use network data to target advertising, has morphed into a fishing expedition into all kinds of interactive advertising. Most notably, and despite urging by the FTC to allow self-regulation to take hold, the Committee does not differentiate between personally identifiable information and non-identifying, anonymous data used for traffic metrics, ad insertion and other common advertising purposes. Lumping different kinds of information together could needlessly undermine marketing as it has been practiced for decades. The “tailoring” of advertising, in the Committee’s words, based on consumers’ behavior and media consumption patterns, has been at the heart of marketing for as long as marketing has been around.

More disturbing are presumptions that “privacy” rights are being violated by any and all forms of behavioral or targeted marketing. Advocacy groups opposed to commercial communication seek to promote an implicit, yet fundamental redefinition of personal privacy—i.e., anything that derives from peoples’ activities, no matter how distanced or anonymous. Taken to logical conclusion, any academic, commercial or journalistic observation of consumer activity could fall under regulatory restrictions under such a framework. Not surprisingly, the FTC—with its long history of regulation of advertising practices—has argued before Congress that self-regulation is likely to be an effective means of protecting consumers’ real privacy interests. According to testimony by FTC Consumer Protection Bureau Director Lydia Parnes before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation this July, the FTC is “cautiously optimistic that the privacy concerns raised by behavioral advertising can be addressed by industry self-regulation.” Nevertheless, in the letter released this month and in three previous inquiries over the past few months, both the House and the Senate seem to be searching for a rationale to regulate. Stay tuned.

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

Ad-blocking programs are getting attention these days, spawned by the proliferation of plug-ins, configurational ad-ons, and announced features in upcoming browser releases. These enable the blocking of ads (or content that “looks” like advertising) by browsers, automating the removal or blocking of some or all content from being viewed on web pages. There has always been a balance (and some would add “tension”) between a consumer’s right to privacy and the marketer’s desire to know more and reach the right customer. The direct intersection of these issues resulting from the rise of consumer and commercial use of the Internet and its complexity, have spawned a degree of heat over these issues, never before seen in history.

From the earliest days of ad-supported radio and television broadcasting there has been a balance between the delivery of cost-effective programming and content and the right of the viewer (today, the end-user) to determine what, when and in what form ads are displayed. Advertising plays a major role in subsidizing delivery of programming. Indeed, while technology may give the individual the ability to skip advertising, there are no legal prohibitions on newspapers, television or radio serving ads along with content. There is also little question that without advertising, the price of content would rise significantly or its availability would diminish, or both.

Continue Reading...

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

In June, H&R Block settled charges brought by the New York Attorney General arising from two sweepstakes programs involving instant-win scratch-off cards. The cards were available at retail when purchasing tax-return preparation services, or online via free registration. The advertisements online, in print, and on radio and television mentioned “no purchase necessary,” but the mentions were fleeting or not conspicuous, according to the NY AG. Further, in-store advertising did not include these words, nor were Official Rules posted in the retail stores. The NY AG noted that under these circumstances, customers who found about the promotions in retail stores had no way to know they could enter online at no charge. The NY AG alleged the lack of disclosure in stores about free entry, coupled with unclear or minor disclosures in the other ads, was false and deceptive. To settle, H&R Block agreed not only to clearly post the Official Rules at participating retail offices, but also to pay $245,000 in penalties and costs. The settlement also requires H&R Block to train employees to direct consumers to information about nopurchase means of entry and clearly disclose that alternate means of entry are available whenever advertising mentions entry is available by purchasing an H&R Block service.

There are complex state laws that cover how promotions, chance, skill or combinations, are to be advertised and operated. When marketing globally, rules are more complicated with language, currency, prize notification and disclosure regulations, as well as age and consent requirements on national, provincial or trading-block scale. What is a “skill” or when is “no purchase” required? When does the chance of winning have equal “dignity” when entering without a purchase? These are often subject to varying interpretation—online and offline. Compliance (registration and bonding in some jurisdictions) can seem an endless legal quagmire. Fortunately, Reed Smith’s Advertising Technology & Media lawyers around the world can help.

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

Although the California Appellate Court, Second Appellate District, has designated the actual opinion as NOT FOR PUBLICATION (this means you must consult the rules of the court before you cite this case), this past May, two former members of the famed rock band The Doors were held to have engaged in false advertising under California law by advertising a concert band using that name. Although a jury found the band members not guilty of trademark infringement or unfair competition, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that “false advertising” claims are not the same, and upheld a permanent injunction against the individuals using the name “The Doors,” or any name containing that name. The court’s ruling also precludes the use of the name, voice or likeness of deceased band member Jim Morrison, in promoting concert ticket sales, citing prohibitions under the California statute regarding rights of publicity. Reed Smith knows publicity and privacy, in California—and throughout the United States and the world. Always know before you show. Call us, we can help.

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

When Coors asked, football fans chose to receive text-message alerts about the NFL football draft, each one containing a blurb about Coors Light; and mobile devices can also send messages, not just receive them. They can be interactive! While messaging technology allows only 40 characters for an ad (the other 120 are for content), simple tag lines are the current vogue.

Coors is not alone. Marriott has sponsored a campaign combining print and cellphone ads with free sports alerts from USA Today’s website. Verizon Wireless is sponsoring an ad campaign in which Screenvision, a company that boasts an ad network of thousands of screens in thousands of motion picture theaters, will ask theater audiences to vote by text messaging, with results calculated and displayed on-screen. The advertising campaign will feature branded popcorn containers and a short film directed by Spike Lee entitled “VCast Street.”

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

As of May 26, brands that spread their positive messages in the UK without clearly identifying the origin will be subject to criminal prosecution—yes, you heard correctly. The consumer protection legislation, which includes fines and prison sentences, makes it an offense to blog, use brand representatives or viral ads “falsely representing oneself as a consumer.” Bloggers who write about products and accept money without disclosing it are also subject to criminal prosecution.

Legislation in Europe may be a response to some well-publicized buzz that unfortunately did not publicize the source. The founder of Whole Foods, using an alias, began criticizing competitors through online forums. Guess who sponsored a road trip called “Wal-Marting Across America” without attribution. And Sony apologized when consumers discovered that an “All I Want for Christmas is a PSP” amateur video and blog appearing to be written by a friend of someone in the video, was a viral ad campaign engineered by Sony and its ad agency.

In the United States, the advertising industry has a successful model of self-regulation and industry leaders believe such a model can be extended to word-of-mouth marketing. Stay tuned.

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

A study released in April by BlogHer & Compass Partners indicates more than 36 million women actively participate in the blogsophere each week, and that half of the participants felt blogs were a reliable source of information and advice. The study found women were so passionate about blogging that 55 percent would give up alcohol, 42 percent would give up their iPods—but only 20 percent would give up chocolate!

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

When NBC Universal broadcasts “Deal or No Deal,” viewers are invited to play a “Lucky Case Game.” The game allows viewers to pick one of six cases and submit their entry via premium text message ($.99) or online. If you pick the right case, you are entered in a random drawing for a prize of up to $100,000. Well, wouldn’t you know. Someone lost and sued NBC under Georgia’s gambling laws, which make gambling contracts void and states that any “money paid…upon a gambling consideration may be recovered from the winner by the loser” (Hardin v. NBC Universal). There are also actions pending before the California courts. Just a few weeks ago, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the $.99 was not a bet or wager, and there was no “gambling contract” between the plaintiffs and NBC. For now, and at least in Georgia, a premium text message game is permissible.

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

Last fall, a California court held that CMG, assignee of rights under Marilyn Monroe’s estate to exploit her image and likeness, had no rights because at the time of her death, there were no laws in either California or New York recognizing rights of publicity. Enter California’s legislature—amending its law to retroactively enact rights of publicity (See Legal Bytes, October 2007) to “remedy” this unfortunate state of affairs. Whoops. Not so fast. A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has just ruled Marilyn Monroe was a New York resident at the time of her death in 1962, and pulled the plug on the recently amended California Right of Publicity law.

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