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

This time, the law of unintended consequences is bringing scientists and online gamers together in a crowd sourcing manner hitherto unimaginable.

An article in this month’s edition of the journal Nature Structural & Molecular Biology has announced (citing both research scientists and online gamers as co-authors of the article) that through a 2008 purpose-oriented video game developed at the University of Washington in 2008 – Foldit – the structure of an enzyme, one used in complicated customizing of retroviruses, was accurately modeled. 

Who cares and how does this affect us? Well, as a former biochemist wannabe, if you can model the structure of these proteins, you can better understand how diseases are caused and correspondingly develop drugs to block or stymie the progress of those diseases.

Amazingly, gamers were able to produce an accurate model of an enzyme whose structure had eluded scientists for a very long time in only three weeks and the report notes, referring specifically to medication against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) for which an understanding and design of antiretroviral drugs is absolutely critical. Seth Cooper, one of the creators of Foldit noted that "Games provide a framework for bringing together the strengths of computers and humans. The results in this week's paper show that gaming, science and computation can be combined to make advances that were not possible before."

If you thought the intellectual property, licensing, user generated content, crowd sourcing, cloud sourcing, social media legal issues were already enough arising from scientific research, online gaming and crowd sourcing alone were enough to make your head spin, conjure up the implications when the term ‘convergence’ is applied to any two or three of these disciplines. Isn’t it time you had legal counsel and representation who can seamlessly help navigate them while your teams are busy solving the health care and medical problems of the world?

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

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

Back in June 2010 - more than a year ago - we announced the launch of a new Reed Smith initiative focusing on Cloud Computing (see 'Transcending the Cloud' - Reed Smith Announces White Paper Series & Legal Initiative on Cloud Computing),showcased with a series of individual and topical white papers, in time being compiled into a comprehensive work entitled, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing.” As most of you know, this brave new world, with new providers, new economic models, new access plans, and broadened capabilities, has grown, and over the past year we have released nine individual white papers, with more on the horizon and updates to existing papers as the legal and technology environments evolve. One of the first in our series was a paper on the state tax implications of cloud computing entitled: “Pennies From Heaven.”

Just letting you know our State Tax Practice is hosting a Reed Smith teleseminar on recent developments in state taxation on the subject, and you can view the invitation and sign up through the registration link on the invitation. Just head to: “Clouds, Codes and Crunching Numbers: An Update on Current State Multi-State Tax Development and Trends in the Taxation of Electronic Goods and Services” and sign up today!

Of course, 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 have any questions about our Cloud Computing initiative or need help, feel free to contact me, Joe 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, 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.

• 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

In 2005, California enacted a ban on the sale or rental of violent video games (defined as a game that depicts killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being) to minors. The stimulus for the law was the stated belief that violent videogames are likely to make minors become more aggressive and violent. The penalty for retailers who violate the ban? As much as $1,000 per violation.

As you might imagine, the legal challenge started almost immediately – from publishers, distributors and sellers; and today, in a 7–2 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by an appeals court that held the California law unconstitutional. I believe (although I didn’t go back and check yet) that California now becomes the seventh state to have such a law struck down. Justice Scalia, in summarizing the decision, is reported to have said, “Our cases hold that minors are entitled to a significant degree of First Amendment protection. Government has no free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which they may be exposed"; and in his written opinion for the majority noted, "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply."

We will try to bring you more details once we analyze the 18-page opinion handed down today, but if you have questions, 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

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

Someone in the payment instrument, payment processing, or payment systems environment must be living under a rock if he or she has not heard of or been affected by the Data Security Standards (DSS), or “PCI-DSS” as it has been referred to in the industry, promulgated and released by the Security Standards Council of the Payment Card Industry Association (PCI). Although the original impetus for the credit-card-driven security standards was combating identity theft and credit card fraud in the wake of the data breaches and compromised (or potentially compromised) databases containing sensitive consumer payment account information, the standards have become the de facto starting point for any compliance security standard in the payment industry.

Last week, the PCI Security Standards Council released new comprehensive guidelines for PCI compliance in virtual card holder data environments dealing with consumer payment system and payment transaction security in a virtual environment. Reed Smith lawyers who work in this area consistently and who have a wealth of experience with information security and financial services, have put together a client alert entitled: "Is the PCI Security Standards Counsel Preparing for Cloudy Weather?"

Credit, debit and prepaid cards; smart cards and chip cards; gift cards and stored value cards; co-branded cards and loyalty rewards programs; corporate cards, fleet cards and purchasing cards; data protection and privacy; information security, identity theft and data breaches; micro, digital and virtual payment systems – E Commerce; The Fair Credit Reporting Act; Regulation E; Regulation Z; Credit Card Act of 2009 (see Credit Card Act of 2009: Act I, Scene 1 or just search the Legal Bytes blog)! Do any of these terms apply to you? Talk to us. It’s what we do. Contact any of the lawyers listed in the Alert, contact me, or contact the lawyer at Reed Smith with whom you routinely work, and we will make sure we help you or connect you to someone at Reed Smith who will be happy to do so.

• 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

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

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

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

Unreasonable restraints on free speech? India? Well, you decide. According to an article published today in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, storm clouds are brewing over just how far the government should and can go in restricting free speech on the Internet. Indeed—just how ambiguous the regulations can be such that interpretation becomes a subjective problem, enforceable at the discretion of regulators.

Unfortunately, the new rules (referred to as “Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011”) stem from a 2008 amendment, widely supported by Internet service providers (I.T. Act 2008) to an Indian information technology statute first enacted in 2000. For a history of the Indian legislation, see Information Technology Act 2000 (ITA-2000).

The Amendment removed intermediary liability of Internet service providers, many of whom are represented by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, for any content created by third parties and for which the ISP played no active role in creating. While the removal of passive ISP intermediary liability is one of growing consistency in the international community, the regulations broadly empowering officials to curtail free speech on the web are not.

Growing trend, justified by security? Aberration spawned by immediate and local concerns? Abuse of power? Reasonable trade-off for protection of society? Ahh, but whose society? Where is the balance? Who decides?

Take a look at the regulations, then you decide. But if you need legal guidance or have questions about regulations that apply to the Internet—internationally, multi-nationally or domestically, in almost any part of the world—let us know. We are here to help.

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

This post was written by Joe Rosenbaum and Adam Snukal.

Among others news publications, CNN Money just recently reported that Amazon.com’s cloud-based Web service EC2 suffered a “rare and major outage” this past Wednesday that affected several online sites it supports, including Reddit, HootSuite, Foursquare and Quora. Amazon.com hosts many major websites on its servers through its cloud-based service and, in total, “[t]housands of customers hitch a ride on Amazon's cloud, renting space on its servers.” The recent outage crashed several customer sites and created glitches of varying degrees on others.

As cloud-based Web services have proliferated, the risks associated with major outages for companies dependent on cloud-based services have become a reality. This recent outage, and potentially others like it, could create reputational risk not only to the cloud providers, but also to those who use the cloud computing services of those providers for their technology infrastructure – processing, applications and data – exposing them to contractual liabilities for failure to meet promised service levels, breaches of performance representations and warranties, and even potential security and data breaches. All these and more, possible legal and contractual problems arising from the use of and reliance on cloud computing. These potential risks should be eliminated or mitigated, and while contracts cannot always guarantee operational integrity or performance, they can provide indemnities and remedies that offer a measure of protection or mitigation in many circumstances.

Reed Smith has been at the forefront of cloud computing legal thought-leadership and risk-mitigation strategy for our clients. Our lawyers have significant U.S., international and multinational experience in implementing strategies, such as service level agreements and risk-mitigating tools that help limit risks associated with cloud-based computing and cloud service outages. Indeed, to appreciate the risks, one need only look to one of the very first articles by Rauer Meyer, entitled When the Cloud Bursts – SLAs and Other Umbrellas, drawn from Reed Smith’s on-going series – one that you can view or download entirely in up-to-date form – entitled "Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing." You can access and download a PDF of the individual article or the entire "Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing" compendium, up to date and including all of the previous chapters in one document.

Of course, feel free to contact Christopher G. Cwalina or Daniel Z. Herbst or Joe Rosenbaum or Adam Snukal (or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you normally work) if you have any questions or require legal counsel or assistance. Make sure you subscribe via email or get the Legal Bytes RSS Feed so you are always in touch with our latest information.

• 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

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

Last week, Legal Bytes posted reference to an opinion piece written by my Reed Smith partner and colleague, Douglas J. Wood, describing the creation of the ‘party of We’ as a byproduct of social media and its enabling technology (See Social Media Revolution - The Party of We). Not one to rest on his laurels, Doug has followed it up with a new article, published last Friday on Law.com, entitled, Let My People Go ... Online! The Party of We and People Power. Change is in the air, and these insights should not be missed.

• 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

This post was written by Joseph Rosenbaum, Adam Snukal and Leonard Bernstein.

Welcome to the New Year. As they do each year, clouds, together with some sunshine (and a cold winter blast periodically in our Northern Hemisphere), roll in, too.

Last year we published a number of 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 innovative and important trends and initiatives in the commercial world give rise to new and interesting legal issues.

So here, from Adam Snukal, Len Bernstein, and Joe Rosenbaum, is a glimpse at some issues that apply to the world of financial services 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 "Look, Up in the Cloud, It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s a Bank." This white paper examines the issues that arise within financial services institutions in the wake of complex and evolving regulation and scrutiny, and we hope it provides some insight into the considerations and concerns that apply, even while the industry and the regulatory landscape are still evolving. A special note of thanks to Anthony S. Traymore, an Advertising Technology & Media associate and a good friend and colleague, who has now joined the legal department of a Reed Smith client. Anthony was instrumental in helping put the initial topical white paper draft together while at Reed Smith, and we like to give credit where credit is due – both here and in the white paper itself. Thanks Anthony.

As we do each time, we have updated the entire work so that, in addition to the single "financial 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 of the previous chapters in one document.

Of course, feel free to contact Adam Snukal, Len Bernstein or Joe Rosenbaum directly if you have any questions or require legal counsel or assistance related to financial services. 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

Here is how Wikipedia (as of January 4, 2011) defines "Network neutrality":

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a buzzword used to describe a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication." The Wikipedia article, which goes on for pages, and with more than 100 footnotes and citations, then says, "The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access."

Now I confess. Lawyers are often accused of writing 1000 word manifestos and calling them "briefs," but I have read and re-read the definition and the ensuing pages of "clarification." I've paid attention in the media and to learned articles. I have no clue what "net neutrality" means. I do, however, take comfort in the fact that if you read the Wikipedia article, and dozens, if not hundreds of other articles, you will see that nobody really has a well-defined meaning of what "net neutrality" is.

But good news. I think I know why all of this confusion exists. It's actually pretty simple. Take the words apart. When you think of the Internet and World Wide Web – references now include wireless and mobile as part of this amorphous, nebulous cloud (oops, another buzzword) – it's simply hard to define. It is dynamically evolving. It has features, functions and uses that morph almost daily. The devices change. The transmissions change. "Internet" has different meanings for different people, from different perspectives, at different points in time, and even the names and categories of parties injecting themselves into the debate are changing.

Then there's "neutrality." What does that mean? Switzerland is neutral. Is it? Everybody on board? Any questions? Good. We all know what that means – especially when referring to the Internet. Right? Technology? Economics? Pricing? Access? Shall we go on? I think not. Perhaps government regulators use the term "neutrality" because it is a term often applied to conflict – wars. Perhaps there is a war going on. A turf war over which government agency gets to control what and who and where and when – not to mention who wants to tax it. Darn, I promised not to mention taxes.

In recent years, the FCC has sought to take the lead in being an advocate for "net neutrality," despite having its share of difficulties with the courts. Undeterred, in December, the FCC released a new report proposing "net neutrality" – a proposal to regulate the Internet. [See, e.g., cnet news article FCC makes Net neutrality rules official.] Remember how easy it is to define the Internet? The vote was hardly unanimous: 3–2. Have you read the FCC document? Almost 200 pages. The legal standard for regulation: "reasonableness."

Now I confess I did start to salivate reading the report. Think about it. We are lawyers. Who wants certainty? Think of all the litigation and dispute, the angst, the risk memoranda, and the frantic consultations that might be avoided if there was certainty. No, no, who am I to call for clarity.

The discussion reminds me of a wryly humorous tale of an architect, engineer and lawyer, all debating what profession the Lord would have chosen. The architect extols the talent necessary to envision and lay out detailed plans for the creation of heavens and earth and everything within – surely a task for an architectural genius. "Nay," cries the engineer. The greatest master builder that ever was and ever will be. "Who else could possibly build such glorious work? Who else could bring such magnificent order out of such utter and sheer chaos?" exclaims the engineer. Quietly the lawyer looks up and whispers, "First and foremost, the Lord would have been a lawyer." Quizzically, the two peer over at the attorney for an explanation. The lawyer lowers the reading glasses and whispers, "Who else could have created such utter and sheer chaos?"

So I'm risking my own self-interest to say, please, FCC Chairman Genachowski and all the others at the FTC, the Department of Commerce – I'm not even going to go overseas for this one. Please end the meaningless war over what, who, why, how, where and when the Internet needs to be controlled in order for it be "neutral." Stop! Nobody knows what you mean or what it means. Change words. Change focus.

How about "net vitality"? Worry about innovation. Encourage competition. Stimulate commercial robustness. Protect the helpless, the vulnerable – intervene where you must, no argument. But IMHO, in this case, less is more. Bayless Manning, former Dean of Stanford Law School and past president of the Council of Foreign Relations (although in a different context), summed up the problem best when he noted, "As batting averages are to baseball players, stars to restaurants, ribbons to generals and stock price to corporate executives, so new statutes are at the heart of the scorekeeping system by which legislators are measured and measure themselves. No legislator ever gained renown as a great non-law giver." Perhaps this too can change.

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

Most of us have come to enjoy the convenience of secure communications over the Internet, enabling us to feel comfortable that a broad range of commercial transactions, and remote access through virtual private networks (VPNs), as well as the transmission and retrieval of data from the Cloud, are secure – at least reasonably so. However, such communications may be less secure than people think. It has recently come to light that the processes used to authenticate the identity of the party (or organization) with whom one is communicating may actually be deeply flawed. In almost all cases, businesses and individuals alike unwittingly trust a large number of "certificate authorities" (so-called “CAs”) to essentially authenticate or vouch for the identity of the endpoints of secure communications over the Internet. 

CAs hail from across the globe. Some are private entities while others are associated with, or operated by, governments – in some cases perhaps a government one may not wish to trust. Still other CAs may simply be incompetent. No matter which is the case, it is clear that these CAs have the power to facilitate man-in-the-middle wiretap exploits and "phishing" through imposter servers. Isn’t it time for general counsel and IT to work together to shore up the authentication processes, because Encryption is Not Enough...

If you aren’t sure your communications are secure, or if you simply don’t know enough to determine the right questions to ask, contact Steven B. Roosa directly, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

• 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

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

On March 26, 2010, the Center for Law, Science and Innovation at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and World2Worlds, Inc., will present “Governance of Virtual Worlds,” a conference held live in the Great Hall at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and in Second Life™.  For many, an opportunity to save on travel time, cost and carbon emissions.  Audience participation will be facilitated virtually within Second Life, live in the Great Hall at ASU and via a chat-bridge. So you can attend in person and live at The Great Hall of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, on the web via video and interactive text-chat, or by avatar in the immersive virtual world of Second Life.

Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, Reed Smith partner and Chair of its Advertising Technology & Media Law practice and an Advisory Board Member of the College of Law, is among the panelists participating. The conference will bring together, physically and virtually, a program of experts from academia, legal practice, corporations, governments, and online communities, to present a broad panorama of the state of governance of virtual worlds. 

National and international participation is encouraged and the conference will begin at ASU at 8:00 a.m. PDT (11:00 a.m. EDT), but for those brave virtual warriors there will be a reception starting at 7:00 a.m. Mountain Standard (Phoenix) Time – one hour before the formal conference begins.  If you wish to attend and/or share this invitation with others, here is a:

• link to the invitation and agenda; and
• a link to the registration page.

• 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

Yesterday, the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut filed suit against the Connecticut subsidiary of Health Net, charging it with violations of the privacy and security requirements of HIPAA. The action, filed yesterday in the United States District Court in Connecticut, comes on the heels of a security breach involving medical records and Social Security numbers. The suit also names United Health Group Inc. and Oxford Health Plans LLC, who acquired Health Net of Connecticut but who were not involved in the data breach.

If you forgot, last year the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), for the first time authorized individual state attorneys’ general to enforce the security and data privacy regulations under HIPAA, and this appears to be the first such action.

The lawsuit claims that Health Net in Connecticut failed to provide adequate security for the medical and financial records of hundreds of thousands of enrolled individuals, and failed to notify them promptly in connection with the breach. The breach, which took place last May, involved the disappearance of a computer hard drive. Health Net eventually reported the breach, posting a notice on its website and starting a staggered process of mailing letters to consumers November 30, 2009, almost six months after the security breach. For those of you involved in the collection, handling, maintenance, or use of personal, financial and medical information covered by HIPAA, new federal rules under the HITECH Act require "timely" notification of certain breaches, rules that have a compliance deadline of February 22, 2010.

Health Net attributed the delay in reporting to its inability to determine exactly what was on the computer hard drive that disappeared, thus not being sure if a notice was even required. One can only surmise that the mere fact that Health Net didn’t know what information was contained on a removable computer hard drive made its reasoning less than satisfactory to the Connecticut State Attorney General. Although Health Net appears to have conceded that the data was not encrypted, it did indicate that the data should not be visible without the use of specific software. However, Kroll Inc., a computer forensic firm retained by Health Net to investigate the breach, reported the data could be viewable with commonly available software.

Privacy, security and data protection of non-public, personally identifiable and sensitive information (e.g., health, financial data) are increasingly subject to stricter rules and regulations. The use of the Internet and web, making digital information more susceptible to undetected duplication, transmission and access – not to mention the obvious fact that carrying millions of pages of records would be impossible, while walking out with a single hard disk or CD-ROM on which the same data and information has been scanned or stored in digital form – can be virtually undetectable.  

Do you know of any law firm that has a team of privacy and data security, identity theft and data breach legal professionals? A firm that has health care, financial services and insurance specialists, as well as lawyers steeped in digital technology, information security and e-commerce? A firm that has transactional, regulatory compliance and policy-oriented lawyers who can audit current practices and policies, assist in developing mechanisms needed to satisfy regulatory requirements, and provide legal support to help avoid a legal problem, and also regulatory, compliance and litigation professionals who can represent and defend clients if a problem arises? Now you do – Reed Smith. If you need more information, contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or Mark Melodia or Paul Bond, 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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by Roberta G. Torian and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

On Nov. 12, the Federal Reserve Board released its final rule on overdrafts for ATM and one-time debit card transactions (the “Final Rule”), which amends Regulation E. Although it hasn’t been published in the Federal Register yet, Legal Bytes thought you might like a little heads-up as to what is in the new Final Rule.

To start, a financial institution will have to obtain a consumer's consent – in advance – to assess a fee for paying an overdraft in an ATM or one-time debit card transaction. To get consent, the financial institution must provide a description, give the consumer an opportunity to opt-in; and if consent is given (which can be revoked at any time), give the consumer written or electronic confirmation. While existing customers who haven’t opted in to the overdraft program by then can’t be charged a fee for these overdrafts after Aug. 15, 2010, for everyone else, compliance is required by July 1, 2010.

Here’s one you might not have considered. What if the system in place with the financial institution doesn’t distinguish between various types of overdrafts (e.g., one-time debit card versus recurring debit card transactions)? Well there is a safe harbor, but you’ll have to call Roberta G. Torian (or read the Final Rule yourself).

Now, the Final Rule doesn’t mean a financial institution is required to pay overdrafts, whether or not a consumer has consented, and it still allows them to maintain policies on overdraft limits, frequency, and other factors that would restrict the customer’s overdraft privileges. In other words, it doesn’t change an institution’s right to manage its overdraft program or risk – only the situations where it can charge a fee to the consumer.

The Final Rule does, however, delve a bit more deeply into the marketing and cross-selling considerations financial institutions must comply with. For example, the Final Rule prohibits conditioning other account services on opting in to the overdraft service. Furthermore, the consumer must be offered the same account terms, conditions and features, whether or not they opt-in to the overdraft program.

The Federal Reserve Board has created a model form for use by financial institutions (one that can be modified to fit the individual programs available) to obtain the consumer’s opt-in consent, and that highlight the disclosures required by the Final Rule. The form was developed because the Final Rule also prohibits including this new overdraft "consent" as part of the basic account agreement when a consumer opens an account. In other words, you need to give the consumer a meaningful opportunity to decide whether to opt-in, and not simply bury the "consent" in a string of clauses and terms.

Although the rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, you can download a copy of the Final Rule right here. But if you really want to know the (opt) ins and (opt) outs of Regulation E, contact Roberta G. Torian, Joe Rosenbaum or any of the lawyers at Reed Smith with whom you work. Reed Smith has a full service Financial Institutions Group that can help virtually any financial institution with legal support, service, and representation, whenever and wherever the need arises. Call us, we are happy to help.

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

Legal Bytes has previously reported to you concerning Title VIII of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (or SAFE Port Act), which is the part of the SAFE Port Act endearingly known as UIGEA (the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006). On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a claim by the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association that UIGEA is too vague or unconstitutional or infringes on the individual's right to privacy. The unanimous ruling was issued amid a tug-of-war between the Justice Department that is anxious to crack down on the gambling industry, and the actions of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and other members of Congress who are advocating legislation to legalize the gaming industry. 

The decision to uphold UIGEA, which banned payment processing by U.S. financial institutions for online betting, might appear to be a blow to the gaming industry, but there is a potential ray of hope. On page 8 of the Court’s Opinion, the Third Circuit concluded UIGEA was not constitutionally vague, nor had the law made any gambling activity illegal. Rather, the vagueness problem cited by the Court arose from the underlying state law. To wit, the Court explicitly notes what many in the industry have known for a long time: "[T]he Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal [under the UIGEA]. Whether the transaction in Interactive’s hypothetical constitutes unlawful Internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet[.]"

One can thus read this decision as an opportunity for state gambling clarity. Currently, only six states in the United States have an outright prohibition against Internet gambling; the other 44 states (and U.S. territories) have an opportunity, if they wish to seize it, to legalize, authorize, license, regulate and potentially tax online gambling. 

For the record, the Frank Internet gambling legislation that proposes to delay enforcement of UIGEA pending the enactment of a federal online gambling licensing and regulatory framework, has been pending in committee since May, and there are many pressing items on Congress's plate. Thus, it is unlikely that Congress is poised for quick action on this legislation. That said, the court’s decision appears to leave the door to online gambling enabled by state legislation open. Stay tuned.

If you need to know more, contact Amy S. Mushahwar directly, or you can always contact me, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We are happy to help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by Amy Mushahwar and Judith Harris.

On Feb. 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (otherwise known as the Stimulus Package) with two broadband deployment grant funding opportunities. As a follow-up to this statute, the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce recently released a Notice that will apply to awarding the first $4 billion of the total $7.2 billion in federal Stimulus Package broadband funds.

Broadband providers are already devising applications to serve rural, unserved and underserved geographic areas. But, did you know that other opportunities in the Notice could be of interest to you? For example, the Notice provides funding to conduct education campaigns in order to stimulate broadband uptake, and local broadband providers may need to partner with regional educators or advertisers to assist with these grass roots education campaigns. Or, broadband deployment applicants receive preferences for linking "community institutions" (which would include schools, universities and hospitals, to name a few) to their proposed broadband networks. The community institution preference would provide unique opportunities for those companies facilitating telemedicine or distance learning to partner with local telecommunications providers.

A link to a nuts-and-bolts Alert regarding the basic components of the NOFA and helpful deadlines is provided below. The Obama administration seems determined to move things along expeditiously. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis from July 14 until Aug. 14, 2009, so you would have to work quickly on this, if you have any interest in riding this particular train. 

You can view Reed Smith’s full Alert by clicking the link below:

Broadband Stimulus Notice Released with Application Details

If you need to know, you need to contact Amy Mushahwar, Judith Harris or your favorite Reed Smith attorney—who will be more than happy to help you.

• 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.

• 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

As we reported last in previous issues of Legal Bytes, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is preparing to open up the generic top level domain space to virtually any string of letters. The 21 existing generic top level domains (gTLD) include .com, .net, .org, .edu, .info and 16 others. 

What Does This Means To Your Domains?   Under the proposal, brand owners will be able to apply for gTLDs corresponding to their brands, and entities representing communities, or wishing to organize a community or common interest channel, will be able to apply for names representing those various interests (e.g., .bank, .medicine, .law, .baseball, etc.). 

Why Should I Care? These new domains might be used in many ways, but be prepared for steep costs. If someone wants to buy a new top level domain (and, in effect, act as the registry for the purchase or distribution of second level domains), it can be very expensive - $185,000 plus $25,000 per year, plus other fees and costs associated with the processing of the application. . .   and the IP stakes involved in this proposal are high. The comments submitted to ICANN on its First Draft Proposal from about 300 corporations, associations, governmental agencies and individuals worldwide, were largely negative and reflected serious concerns about trademark rights, increased cybersquatting, monitoring costs, defensive registrations and the like. Many complained of the steep toll these costs already take over the 21 existing domains and painted a gloomy choice under the new proposal: increase expenditures on trademark defense over potentially hundreds of new domain channels, or refuse to make the expenditure and potentially jeopardize the strength of a brand. 

What You Can Do? Applications will likely not be accepted until, at the earliest, December or the first quarter of 2010, so this is your opportunity to make your concerns known. In the meantime, ICANN submitted its Second Draft Guidebook that purports to address some of the concerns raised by the comments and at least pays lip service to giving further consideration to the trademark questions. Comments on the Second Draft Guidebook are due April 13. ICANN is also soliciting comments on recent related studies and is preparing to issue a report addressing trademark considerations later in April. We know the issues involved and are familiar with this process. We represented the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the advertising industry's largest trade association, in connection with its submission to ICANN regarding the First Draft Guidebook, and we are working with the ANA on formulating its position on the second draft. You can click on the highlighted links to read the ANA's submission to ICANN on the First Draft Guidebook, and an updated Client Alert on this topic. If you are interested in submitting your comments and would like us to assist you, I strongly encourage you to contact John Hines.

• 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

Attention holiday shoppers. Not sure what to buy Aunt Matilda or cousin George? A gift card allows them to buy whatever they like? Maybe. Large retailers such as Sharper Image, Bombay Company and Linens ‘N Things have filed for bankruptcy or gone out of business, leaving behind millions of dollars in unused gift cards. In bankruptcy, money left on a gift card is treated as a debt, which the bankruptcy court can decide if it is to be repaid, and how. If the retailer stays in business, the court may allow it to continue to honor its cards, but even then consumers may not get the full value. Sharper Image, for example, was allowed to continue accepting gift cards, but only if the cardholder spent twice the value of the card in a single transaction. Bombay Company was allowed to pay its gift-card holders 25 cents on the dollar. If the retailer closes its doors, it is possible the consumer’s only recourse would be to file a claim and stand in line with the other unsecured creditors.

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

Potentially signaling tougher enforcement initiatives ahead, New York recently enacted a law that gives consumers who shop online, essentially the same types of consumer protections available when buying over the phone or through the mail. New York’s law that now applies to sales over the Internet means that merchants must reasonably expect to be able to ship the goods ordered within 30 days or the order can’t be accepted; merchants who use a post office box or other fulfillment mail address must display (prominently) the company’s name and physical street address; merchants must allow a consumer to cancel any order that doesn’t actually ship within 30 days and either obtain a refund or pick substitute merchandise; the merchant must clearly detail the conditions under which the consumer will be entitled to a refund; and the merchant must keep records of consumer complaints that deal with failures to ship or to provide advertised goods and services.

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

Just about a year ago, the Supreme Court in Grokster modified a decades-old ruling in the “Sony Betamax” case to remove the insulation automatically given to Internet service providers and hosting services when it can be shown that even with a substantial non-infringing use, a service condoned and encouraged (and made money) through illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. This month, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in favor of eBay which overturns decades of legal precedent favoring the issuance of injunctions as an automatic right granted to plaintiffs for patent infringement. The case involved eBay’s “buy-it-now” feature that permitted customers to buy items “now” without being involved in the auction process. Although the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to ultimately determine if an injunction was or was not appropriate, the significance of the decision cannot be underestimated.

By way of background, when a lower court first held that eBay’s “buy-it-now” feature infringed two patents owned by Tom Woolston (founder of MercExchange), the court ordered eBay to pay damages (approximately $25 million), but did not issue an injunction. That court reasoned that since MercExchange was apparently willing to license its patents, an injunction was neither necessary nor appropriate. Unfortunately, the next court on the ladder upwards, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, reversed that decision stating the “general rule” that injunctions must follow all infringement findings unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. Since an appeal was pending to the Supreme Court, the court held the injunction in abeyance awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held the lower courts did not properly evaluate the case under federal requirements. More importantly, language in the concurring opinion written by Justice Kennedy and signed by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer noted that courts must consider the broader implications of using injunctions because an “industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees,” and in those instances, “legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”

This language in the Supreme Court’s decision could deal a serious blow to companies that exist solely to engage in patent infringement litigation (so-called “patent trolls”) and who use the U.S. patent system to coerce lucrative settlements from companies who previously faced injunctions that threatened to shut down entire businesses. Hearken back to the RIM “Blackberry” litigation which recently settled. If the schedule had been a few months earlier, RIM could certainly have been much better positioned before choosing to settle for more than $600 million rather than face the possibility of an injunction shutting down (or certainly making life exceedingly difficult with work-arounds) an entire business.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the eBay case could lead to a higher threshold for injunctions, now that money damages are not automatically precluded (nor injunctions automatically issued) in adjudicating patent infringement cases. Some critics complain that the ruling creates the possibility that courts can become the arbiters of a damage-based compulsory licensing system, while advocates say the ruling will prevent companies from buying up patents and exploiting their litigation value, rather than the underlying invention itself—the basis for patent protection in the first place. Most analysts, however, agree on one thing—the likelihood that products subject to patent infringement actions will be threatened with automatic shut downs will start to decrease, increasing the leverage defendants have in any patent infringement suit to settle cases.

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

Click Defense, a company that sells tools for online marketing, including tools to prevent click fraud, sued Google. Why? Because it just doesn’t do enough to prevent “click fraud”—the process of deliberately clicking Web ads to run up rival advertising costs (the advertiser has to pay Google for each click). Whether it does or doesn’t do enough is a question of fact and whether it has an obligation to do something, anything, or more than it is doing is also debatable. On one end of the spectrum, liability could attach if a search engine company actually knew (or should have known) someone was doing that and did nothing to stop or prevent it. At the other end is the fact that in today’s environment, it is often difficult for these providers to monitor or determine what constitutes improper or proper clicking. After all, isn’t the goal of advertising to induce you to click? This is a sticky problem that is likely not to go away and will find different paths through the courts—there is too much money at stake. How can we help you?

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