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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The August 29, 2011 issue of BNA’s Health IT Law & Industry Report (Vol. 3, No. 36), describes some of the major legal and contractual issues raised when health care industry companies and professionals are considering moving to a cloud computing environment. Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum was interviewed by the author, Kendra Casey Plank, for her article, entitled, “Attorney: Cloud Services Offer Affordable Solutions but Raise Privacy, Security Risks.” The article not only quotes Rosenbaum extensively, but also refers to Reed Smith’s White Paper series “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing,” which began in June 2010 (see "Transcending the Cloud" - Reed Smith Announces White Paper Series & Legal Initiative on Cloud Computing). The series is updated regularly with individual articles on topics ranging from government contracting and state tax, to the most recent White Paper entitled, “Health Care in the Cloud – Think You Are Doing Fine on Cloud Nine? Hey, You! Think Again. Better Get Off of My Cloud,” which Rosenbaum and Reed Smith Associate Vicky G. Gormanly wrote and which was posted on the Legal Bytes blog August 5, 2001 (Transcending the Cloud - Health Care on Cloud 9? Are You Doing Fine?). What’s the state of your health care compliance? Are you doing fine?

Read the White Paper and, if you have any questions or need help, contact Joe Rosenbaum or Vicky Gormanly, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

• 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

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

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

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

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

Since 2009, Legal Bytes has been blogging off and on about the implications of social media to the legal profession and the legal process. Whether it's judges being "Friends" with lawyers (see, Florida Judges Can't Have Friends), or jurors networking about evidence or cases as they deliberate (see, When Pressing Suits, Judges Tell Jurors Neither Social Nor Media is OK), or reporters "tweeting" from the courtroom (see, Freedom of the Press = Freedom to Tweet), social media is a force to be reckoned with—and the legal process also needs to reckon with it.

The latest blip on the radar comes from the UK, where Joanna Fraill, a juror, has been tried and convicted of being in contempt of court in what is being widely reported as the first Internet-related contempt of court prosecution in the UK (and perhaps anywhere). So in addition to judges, prosecutors and plaintiffs' lawyers being wary about managing their online relationships, and jurors being admonished for searching online for information regarding the facts, parties, or issues in a case, add communication between jurors and parties in the legal proceedings to the list. Ms. Jamie Sewart, a defendant in a trial in Manchester involving billions of BPS' worth of drugs, was contacted by Ms. Fraill, one of the jurors in the trial, through Facebook while the jury was deliberating.

Ms. Sewart admitted knowing Ms. Fraill was one of the jurors when she "accepted" the request to be friends, and the case collapsed when their communication through the social networking medium was uncovered. Ms. Sewart's partner was convicted and is currently in prison, but Ms. Sewart was acquitted as a result of this trial. In one exchange between them – the text has now been made public – Ms. Fraill sent a message to Ms. Sewart regarding the jury deliberations stating: "cant get anyone to go either no one budging pleeeeeese don't say anything cause jamie they could all miss trial and I will get 4cked to0."

Now before everyone rants about the evils of social media, bear in mind that the same result would be obtained if the juror had written a letter, called by phone or sent a coded message by carrier pigeon. The fact that a new means of communication – the Internet – was involved doesn't change the admonition, the rules, or the consequences of the conduct. Indeed, with Facebook's user population at approximately 700 million, the relatively lax attitude toward anyone monitoring their millions of followers on Twitter (or who they follow – I generally just automatically reciprocate), isn't it likely one of you is already "Friends" with a criminal, or you will be, or you are following someone who may be appearing in court any day now?

Communication between participants in legal cases has long been the subject of ethical rules, professional guidelines and rigorous policing. Issues relating to privilege and work product, attorney-client communication, and relationships between lawyers, judges, plaintiffs and defendants, are not new. But jurors wanting to be "friends" with a defendant in the midst of a trial – well that's one I haven't heard before.

Reed Smith has teams of lawyers knowledgeable in digital evidence and discovery, employment and social media, privilege and litigation, in the age of the Internet and mobile communication. So as I've said before, keep your browser tuned (or bookmarked) to www.LegalBytes.com for breaking news, and if you do need help, contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers at Reed Smith with whom you work.

OMG B KEWL and call (or SMS) if you need help.
 

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by Joseph I. Rosenbaum, Frederick H. Lah, Zack Dong and Amy S. Mushahwar.

On May 4, 2011, the Chinese government announced it was establishing the State Internet Information Office, an office dedicated to managing Internet information. According to the announcement, this office will be responsible for directing, coordinating, and supervising online content management. The office will also have enforcement authority over those in violation of China's laws and regulations (see, for example, China sets up office for Internet information management). While there are reports that many believe the purpose of the new office will be to censor political and social dissidents (see, China Creates New Agency for Patrolling the Internet, the office may also have a key role in thwarting illegal spamming and other dubious data practices.

Further, many see the establishment of this office as another step forward for the Chinese in terms of establishing their own data-protection regime. China has long been considered as lagging behind other countries in terms of their data-protection standards (quite possibly by design), and with no comprehensive data privacy law, businesses have had little guidance concerning the handling of personal data. China published the draft Personal Information Protection Measures in 2005, but those Measures have not yet been adopted and little progress seems to have been made since then. However, in February 2011, China issued a draft of the "Information Security Technology - Guide of Personal Information Protection" ("Guidelines") to address the lack of guidance and standards surrounding online information practices in China. The Guidelines include standards with respect to collecting, processing, and using data, and there are provisions related to the transfer of data to third parties. While the Guidelines are technically non-binding, they still provide important guidance for businesses in China on how to protect the online information of China's citizens. With the Guidelines still under review, Reed Smith lawyers will continue to monitor developments to see what form the Guidelines will take in the future.

If you have or are considering a presence in China, you need to know and be attentive to many things, if you are to succeed in the Chinese marketplace. That’s why you should contact Frederick H. Lah in our Princeton office, Zack Dong in our Beijing office, Amy S. Mushahwar in our Washington, D.C., office, me, or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you regularly work. When you need legal guidance or have questions about regulations that apply online, on the Web, and across the Internet, in almost any part of the world, let us know. We are here to help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Adword Lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

 

The English Translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When

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

Where

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

Get more information & REGISTER.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Indeed. Déjà vu all over again!

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

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

Think social media is a fad? Think Common Sense or the Federalist Papers were just articles and bits of information? Wonder if broadcast television and radio – access to information – contributed to the demise of the Berlin Wall (that, and of course, Pink Floyd)? Well hearken ye well, citizens of the planet. Check out the editorial by my Reed Smith partner and colleague, Douglas J. Wood, entitled, WikiLeaks Lessons: The Party of We — Already in Control and buckle up. The revolution has just begun.

• 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

Brad Newberg, in Reed Smith's Virginia office, has authored a brief, insightful analysis of the copyright implications arising from the use of "bots" in gaming. Published in Legal Bytes initially, it has now (January 20, 2011) been published by the Media & Entertainment – USA newsletter of the International Law Office (ILO), written exclusively by Reed Smith lawyers and edited by Joe Rosenbaum, with the support of ILO.

This is a timely and important note, and you can read it either by using the link Bots in Game Play Questionable Under Copyright Law, or by downloading a personal copy for reading any time here: Copyright - Bots and Game (PDF). Of course, if you have questions or need help or more information, feel fee to contact Brad Newberg directly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To all the readers of Legal Bytes:

This is the time of year when many of you are celebrating holidays, spending time with family, friends and loved ones, bidding farewell to the end of 2010, and celebrating the coming New Year. It is a time when many of us take a moment to reflect on the year gone by and perhaps wonder what the New Year will bring. There are people we remember with fondness; perhaps a few we might be happy to forget. But as 2010 comes to an end, we should take a moment to reflect on the friendships and experiences that helped us grow, and resolve to do some things better next year—perhaps for those less fortunate.

Most of all, this time of year gives us an excuse to say thank you for the blessings we have and to express appreciation to people who have enriched our lives. If you are reading this, you likely have or will read something else posted in Legal Bytes. You are my audience and I have to follow you—you are part of the fabric of my professional life and each of your threads enriches me, helps me weave the patterns and textures in these electronic pages. I am grateful for your readership—that you take a moment out of your busy lives to read and comment, and maybe gain some insight while being a little entertained. Thanks.

I would be remiss if I didn't also thank a few people at Reed Smith like Erin Bailey and Lois Thomson, who make this blog happen, and Rebecca Blaw and Mike Scherpereel, who give their support and pitch in when needed. These are the folks you don't see, but I do—they help make Legal Bytes feel alive. They are awesome and there aren't words to express how grateful I am—especially when they get my email that says "please can we get this posted ASAP." Thank you so much. I couldn't do this without you! I would also like to thank Carolyn Boyle at the International Law Office (ILO) - she is the force behind motivating me to push content into the U.S. Media and Entertainment Newsletter, and while I can take credit for the substance, without her, the thousands of readers who enjoy the links and insights would be waiting far too long. Thank you. No, you aren't nagging me.

As the year comes to an end, let me express my appreciation and gratitude to each of you. Thank you for reading. You motivate me to keep this interesting and exciting. Let me know if I succeed; scream at me if I fail. In addition to my thanks, please accept my best wishes for a wonderful holiday season and a terrific new year, filled with health, happiness and success. Thank you.

Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum

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

The recorded legal enforcement of privacy dates back to at least 1361, when Justices of the Peace Act in England provided for the arrest of Peeping Toms and eavesdroppers. In the 1760s, English Parliamentarian William Pitt wrote: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow though it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." Translation: One's home is one's castle.

The right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures and intrusions into one's home is among the earliest expressions of the legal right to privacy. Today, privacy has been woven into the fabric of the laws and regulations of most countries throughout the world. The Preamble to the Australian Constitution states: "A free and democratic society requires respect for the autonomy of individuals, and limits on the power of both state and private organizations to intrude on that autonomy. Privacy is a key value which underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. Privacy is a basic human right and the reasonable expectation of every person." The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may well be the first multi-national, international legal document moving privacy to the level of a legally enforceable principle, noting that no one should be subject to arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or communication, nor attacks on honor or reputation, and that each individual should have the right to legal protection against such interference or attack. In 1965, the Organization of American States proclaimed the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which called for protection of numerous human rights, including the right of privacy.

We've come a long way. Today, Google's Peeping Toms are roving street cars equipped with cameras and are allegedly violating privacy rights left and right as they roam through your neighborhood. If you hadn't heard, Google reported earlier this year that in the course of its Street View automobiles roaming the streets of cities in more than 30 countries, its picture-capturing vehicles had also accidentally gathered data over unsecured Wi-Fi systems. Oops! Some of Google's woes stem from mistakenly collecting data it allegedly should not have, although many privacy advocates and some regulators are protesting the actual picture-taking itself – even though the streets are public – not just the inadvertent capture of such data. Google has agreed to delete Wi-Fi data collected accidentally and has apologized (e.g., New Zealand, United Kingdom) for collecting personal data (e.g., personal emails, passwords) from wireless networks.

Although this past October (2010), the FTC in the United States indicated its inquiry into violations of privacy by Google's Street View cars was ended – noting that Google had made efforts to increase its privacy and security processes and compliance procedures – Google is still facing a slew of questions, objections and government inquiries. Inquiries remain pending from attorneys general in a number of U.S. states, and at last count, about six or seven actual or putative class-action suits were pending.

In Germany, regulators have forced Google to agree to allow individuals to opt out of Street View and, when doing so, there will be computer-generated pixilation of their houses, instead of a photo, effectively blurring detail. Even with Google's recent actions to bolster its compliance and sensitivity to privacy concerns, German investigators may still pursue investigations and violations. Indeed, investigations are also underway in Australia, France, Ireland, Italy and Spain.

In the "you can't make this up" category on the subject, Legal Bytes recently saw a report that a woman in Japan is suing Google for about $7,000 for psychological damages because images of her underwear have appeared on the clothes washing/drying line outside her home displayed on Google Maps. Mainichi news service in Japan reports that part of her allegations state: "I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime. It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence."

When do public photographs become grist for the Peeping Tom mills? What about government surveillance? Satellite photos? Drone imagery? I, for one, am giving up sunbathing on the roof from now on!

Privacy is a dynamic and evolving concept – one not uniformly dealt with or perceived around the world, or even within nations. Privacy is often blurred with identity issues or security principles, in some cases overlapping and in others just emotionally charged rhetoric. Witness the recent FTC and Department of Commerce reports, each ostensibly dealing with "privacy." You can read about it on blogs posted by our Global Regulatory Enforcement Group, as well as right here on Legal Bytes (see, 'Tis The Season To Issue Privacy Reports - NTIA Green Paper, Protecting Consumer Privacy - FTC Issues Staff Report and Privacy & Data Security Bills After the Midterm Elections), or search "privacy" in the search box in the left side navigation bar. But there is no substitute for getting the advice, counsel and guidance about your own particular situation from legal representatives who deal with these issues – in the United States and around the globe. So if you do need assistance, call me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, global chair of Reed Smith's Advertising Technology & Media law practice, or any of the Reed Smith attorneys with whom you regularly work.

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

In August we reported that Viacom intended to appeal the U.S. District Court ruling in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar copyright infringement case brought by Viacom (Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling). As you may recall, the federal court decided YouTube is protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you have not yet read the original text of the District Court decision, you can read and/or download it from Legal Bytes (Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case).

Regardless of your perspective, this continues to be a closely watched legal battle, with significant implications in the determinations made by the court – not only because of the stature of the parties, but also because the issues implicate so much of the content-related activity on the Internet and the interpretation of the seminal U.S. statute that applies – the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Earlier this week, three academic legal scholars filed a brief in support of the Viacom entities, stating that "the central issue in this case are the legal tests for contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement from the use of Internet sites – in this instance, the YouTube site – to reproduce and disseminate large amounts of copyrighted material without authorization from copyright owners." The brief presents interesting and thoughtful insights into the law of copyright and protection of intellectual property rights in this age of digital information and content. If you would like to read the brief, you can download your own copy right here: Brief of Amici Curiae Stuart N. Brotman, Ronald A. Cass, and Raymond T. Nimmer In Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Legal Bytes will continue to monitor developments and post significant materials that we hope will stimulate your thinking, and increase your appreciation of the complexity of the issue and the stakes in this intellectual property battle. If you would like further information, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what should businesses do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope to see you at the seminar.

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

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

In June, Legal Bytes reported [Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case]that a United States federal court ruled in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom on a summary judgment motion. Just last month, we again reported that Viacom had filed notice of its intention to appeal that ruling [Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling], and a companion article written by Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum [Viacom Appeals YouTube Copyright Ruling] has been posted on the Media & Entertainment Newsletter of the International Law Office.

Now in Spain, the Spanish Federal Court sitting in Madrid has dismissed charges brought by the Spanish broadcasting company Telecinco (Gestevision Telecinco SA), alleging that YouTube was liable for copyright infringement resulting from users uploading content and material that infringed the copyright of others. Mediaset, the Italian company that is the majority shareholder of Telecinco, is also involved in a copyright infringement action involving such video uploads, although no ruling has yet issued in that case. The ruling from the Spanish Federal Court comes on the heels of a ruling at the end of last year in France that found Google guilty of copyright infringement, but in that case, books were being scanned and excerpts put online without first obtaining permission or consent from the copyright owner. That said, earlier this month, a court in Germany ruled against Google, holding it liable for videos that were subject to the copyright of others and uploaded on YouTube.

The Spanish court essentially agreed with YouTube’s argument that it is a content-hosting platform, not directly responsible for content uploaded or posted by others. Without appearing flippant, Legal Bytes notes that, similar to Viacom’s decision to appeal the ruling in the United States, everyone who is on the losing side of these battles is (or has indicated an intention of) appealing the ruling against them.

Need to understand user-generated content, uploading videos or other content, rights of authors, and creators of content, and understand them in multiple jurisdictions around the world?  Contact Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We can help.

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

The U.S. Media & Entertainment Newsletter of the International Law Office (ILO) has published an adaptation of the original Legal Bytes posting by Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum discussing the appeal by Viacom of the ruling in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom. You can download or view a copy of the ILO publication, "Viacom appeals Google/YouTube ruling", and you can view the original Legal Bytes posting, Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling.

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

As you know, we have been updating our Cloud Computing initiative with a consistent stream of information – 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. Often, especially when words like "privacy" and "security" are thrown about, it becomes easy to overlook some of the other issues lurking in the background.

So here, from Jeremy D. Feinstein, is a glimpse at some antitrust issues. 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 "Tying Up the Cloud," and seeks to give you some insights into the potential antitrust and competitive issues that even customers should be aware of, if not concerned with, when considering entering the cloud.

As we continue to do, we have updated the entire work so that, along with the single chapter on "Tying Up the Cloud" applicable to antitrust, you can now access and download the PDF of our complete "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.

Feel free to contact Jeremy D. Feinstein directly if you have any questions or require legal counsel or assistance related to competition or antitrust. 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 contact me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or Adam Snukal, or any 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

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

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

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

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

Just over a month ago, Legal Bytes reported [Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case] that a federal court ruled in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom on a summary judgment motion. The court decided YouTube is protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”).

We also told you that we haven’t heard the last of this case, since immediately after the ruling was announced, Michael Fricklas, Viacom Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, noted, “This case has always been about whether intentional theft of copyrighted works is permitted under existing law and we always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today's decision accelerates our opportunity to do so.”

Consistent with that announcement, Viacom has now filed its notice to appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Southern District of New York. Many legal scholars feel that in this case, the District Court opinion will be very persuasive; one never knows until the appellate court has rendered its decision. Stay tuned. If you did not read the original District Court decision, you can read and download it through the original posting on Legal Bytes: [Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case].

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

As part of our Cloud Computing initiative, we promised to tackle some issues that have seen little coverage elsewhere and can often be overlooked in the “technological” arena. Here is a look at the insurance coverage issues representing our next chapter in Reed Smith’s on-going series, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing.” This White Paper and Chapter takes a look at the insurance coverage implications of cloud computing, and is aptly titled “Cloud Coverage.”

We would like to thank Richard P. Lewis and Carolyn H. Rosenberg for their thoughtful and practical insights and effort. Feel free to contact them directly if any questions arise or if you need help or more information. As we continue to do, we updated the entire work so that in addition to the single chapter on “Cloud Coverage,” you can access the PDF of our “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing” compendium, receiving a complete update, including this one on insurance coverage.

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 me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or Adam Snukal, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

As part of our Cloud Computing initiative entitled, we take a step over to Europe and proudly present our next chapter in Reed Smith’s on-going series “Cloud Computing - A German Perspective.” This white paper and chapter, takes a look at cloud computing from a German and, to some extent, potentially representative European perspective. It’s a refreshing look at both some legislative and regulatory implications, as well as a view from outside the United States.

We would like to thank Thomas Fischl and Katharina A. Weimer in our Reed Smith Munich office for their insight and effort. Feel free to contact them directly if any questions arise or if you need help or more information. As we continue to do, we updated the entire work so that when you access the .PDF of our “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing” compendium, you will receive all of the sections, now updated with this chapter from Germany.

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 me Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, Adam Snukal, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

Stimulated by the recently launched Reed Smith Cloud Computing initiative, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum was interviewed by CFO U.S. reporter David McCann, and in the August 10, 2010, Today in Finance section, you can read the entire interview, "The Cloud's Legal Lining".

You can also read and download a current copy of all of the white papers in our ongoing series, "Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing." Be sure you subscribe via email or get the Legal Bytes RSS Feed so you are always in touch with the latest and most updated version, as new white papers on additional topics are released. Of course, if you have questions, you can always contact Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum directly, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.
 

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

As part of our Cloud Computing initiative, we are proud to present the next installment and chapter in our on-going series, "Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing." This White Paper and Chapter, entitled E-Discovery in the Cloud, takes a close look at some of the challenges that lie ahead in the world of discovery, when information and applications are processed, stored, accessed and used in a cloud-computing environment.

We would like to thank Jennifer Yule DePriest and Claire Covington for their hard work in putting this together, and you should feel free to contact them directly if any questions arise or if you need help or more information. As we have in the past, we have also updated the entire work so that when you access the PDF of our "Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing" compendium, you will receive all of the sections, now updated with this "E-Discovery in the Cloud" chapter, and you will have our updated and growing body of legal and regulatory insight into Cloud Computing.

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 me Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, Adam Snukal, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

Yesterday, the federal court hearing the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom against YouTube and Google ruled in favor of Google and YouTube on a summary judgment motion, deciding that YouTube is protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"), since it promptly sought to comply with the DMCA by removing protected content when notified of it.

The federal court held that under the law, if service providers were required to try to determine what content is infringing, or if service providers were held liable because they know infringement is rampant in the industry, or that users routinely post infringing materials, it "would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA." Only Congress has the power to decide to alter or reallocate the burden of copyright protection from the rights holder (i.e., the copyright owner) to the service provider. In examining that question, the court stated that where such a huge volume of works are posted by others, the service provider "cannot by inspection determine whether the use has been licensed by the owner, or whether its posting” is a "fair use" of the material, or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting. The DMCA is explicit: it shall not be construed to condition "safe harbor" protection on "a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity . . . ." Under 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 service provider platform would generally not be liable for intellectual property infringement.

It's unlikely you have heard the end of this lawsuit. In a statement posted yesterday by Michael Fricklas, Viacom Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Viacom noted that, "This case has always been about whether intentional theft of copyrighted works is permitted under existing law and we always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today's decision accelerates our opportunity to do so."

You can read and download the court's entire decision right here.

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

Last week, Legal Bytes announced Reed Smith’s new global initiative, Cloud Computing. With that announcement, the Task Force released the first three in a series of white papers entitled, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing.” We also promised to release “case studies” shortly after the white papers, to demonstrate how the insights in each paper have practical implications through case study examples.

Here is the first: A case study on government contracting, now attached to the white paper entitled, “The Risks and Rewards of a U.S. Federal Government Contractor Employing a Cloud Service Provider to Perform a Federal Government Contract,” authored by Lorraine Campos, Stephanie Giese and Joelle Laszlo. Contact them if you need to know more about this important area of cloud computing.

We will update each individual paper, as well as the compendium, as each paper, case study and update is released, so make sure you subscribe via email or get the Legal Bytes RSS Feed so you are always in touch with the latest information. Of course, if you ever have questions, you can always contact me Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, Adam Snukal, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

This post was written by  Judith L. Harris and Amy Mushahwar.

The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has just voted to open a formal proceeding regarding how best to respond to the D.C. Circuit's decision in Comcast v. FCC (see our previous blog post, FCC Caught by (not in) the Web). In the Comcast case, the court reversed an FCC decision finding that Comcast had violated the Commission's non-discrimination principles by interfering with traffic from broadband subscribers using an online peer-to-peer file-sharing technology from BitTorrent. The appellate court ruled the Commission, under the FCC's previous (Republican) Chairman Kevin Martin, had improperly stretched its ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to Title I of the Communications Act to enforce one of its net neutrality principles against an Internet services provider. Earlier, the Commission had classified Internet access as an information service, only subject to light-touch Title I regulation, rather than as a telecommunications service, subject to more extensive Title II regulation, traditionally applied to common carriers.

At stake, in the minds of many, is nothing less than the future of the Internet: whether it is to be free and open and, assuming so, who is best positioned to determine what that means. In the eyes of some, especially the large Internet service providers such as Comcast, Verizon Wireless and AT&T, a free and open Internet equates to a complete government hands-off approach. Investment and innovation has flourished under the prior deregulatory steps, they argue. Others, especially edge players, including content and application providers such as Google, Amazon.com and Apple, focus on increasing Internet facilities consolidation and vertical integration in the industry. They see the need for a "cop on the beat" and explicit (e.g., net neutrality) rules to insure that those who control the "pipes" don't interfere with consumer choice and play favorites when it comes to content.

In the two months that have ensued since the Comcast decision, handed down only two weeks after the FCC's release of the Congressionally mandated National Broadband Plan, the debate has raged as to whether, and if so, how, the FCC should proceed to exercise oversight over the activities of Internet service providers. Not surprisingly, the question of increasing significance is where the FCC might turn for the power it needs to implement many of the recommendations contained in the National Broadband Plan. Everyone, it seems, has weighed in, from all branches of government (the White House, Congress and all the Commissioners at the FCC), to all of the private stakeholders, trade associations, coalitions that have come into existence to lobby the issue, media, academics, and Wall Street analysts (witnessing the recent volatility of ISP stocks).

Yesterday's action by the FCC finally gets the ball really rolling. While Congress has threatened legislation (in both directions) and a court challenge is inevitable no matter where the Commission ends up, the FCC's 3-2 decision opening this new proceeding is a necessary first step in breaking the current logjam.

The Notice of this new action is worded in neutral terms and presents three alternative solutions to the Commission's current dilemma. The Notice also seeks other ideas from the public. However, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has made no secret of the course he prefers. In the aftermath of the Comcast ruling, he outlined what he dubbed a "third way," (the third option, obviously not accidentally, in yesterday's Notice). His approach, he believes, represents a middle road between continuing to limp along regulating ISPs under Title I, despite the limited power that would afford the FCC to implement some aspects of the National Broadband Plan, and simply reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II, with the potential that would introduce for heavy-handed regulation – such things as oversight of rates and the imposition of interconnection and unbundling obligations. This "third way" envisioned by Chairman Genowchowski, WOULD involve Title II reclassification, but would also include explicit forbearance from use of those powers most feared by telcos and cable companies.

One thing is clear: it's going to be a long, hot summer in Washington. The Chairman is determined to keep the proceeding moving (perhaps in part to encourage industry and public/private working groups that have already sprouted to come up with a negotiated solution). Comments from the public are due July 15, 2010, less than 30 days from now, with reply comments due August 12, 2010. An Order by the Commission is expected before year-end (and the start of a new Congress), with a decision possible as early as October. The effect of the outcome of the midterm elections and, before then, the tremendous amounts of money the upcoming election will infuse into the system from all of the stakeholders, create wildcards. The stakes are high; the decisions are likely to affect the shape of the Internet for a very long time.

Whether you want more information or need help filing comments with the FCC, look no further than our own Judith L. Harris and Amy Mushahwar in our D.C. office – authorities in the area. Of course, you can always call me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.
 

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

This post was written by Joseph I. Rosenbaum, Adam Snukal and Douglas J. Wood.

For those of you who have wondered why Legal Bytes has been so quiet recently, it’s because I, and my colleague Adam Snukal, have been hard at work coordinating and putting together a new initiative – Cloud Computing.

Today, we are proud to announce the launch of a new Reed Smith initiative focusing on Cloud Computing and showcased with our new series of white papers entitled, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing.”  The term “cloud computing” is showing up with greater frequency, but there is still much confusion and unawareness of what it means, and, more significantly for our purposes, how it is affecting and will increasingly affect you.  In the decade ahead, cloud computing likely will affect everyone, from major multinational corporations to consumers; from governments to the local grocery store. 

But cloud computing, like social media, is ultimately not about technological innovation or novel or transformative invention – it is about changing the fundamental nature of our relationships and how all of us access and use information and application programs: at work, in school, at play, as we shop and as we grow.  Cloud computing is transformative because it will enable anyone, anywhere and at any time, to access, use and create information and content – whether working on a spreadsheet, collaborating on a graphic design, creating an online gaming program, searching for a new restaurant, streaming music, or watching a motion picture – independent of a robust processing device.  No longer tied to desktops, laptops or proprietary pieces of equipment – just plug into the wall, as you would for electricity, and it’s there.  All you need is the ability to enter commands (input) and to display and receive (output) the results.  No plugs, no problem.  Just as sending and receiving transmissions wirelessly occur today, so too will the devices that access the cloud. 

In this brave new world, there will be new providers, new economic models, new access plans, and broadened capabilities, at differential pricing.  On demand, subscription, tiered pricing (anyone remember the timesharing companies of the late ‘60s and ‘70s?) will likely return to fashion in a world of cloud computing.

As mentioned above, the Cloud Computing Task Force at Reed Smith has created a series of white papers – collectively entitled “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing” – to elucidate the opportunities and dangers, the risks and rewards of cloud computing.  Our collection of white papers will cover cloud computing issues you may have heard little about, but that are and will be no less significant.  Will we still need backup on our devices?  What about cloud insurance?  New economic and business models mean – yes, you knew this was coming – new taxes.  What about security and privacy and data protection in the cloud?  We will worry about standards and interoperability.  No one provider can possibly cover the world or a world of data and applications – mobile phone carriers interexchange based on regulations over decades; Internet protocols evolved to ensure that email and other providers would enable individuals to communicate regardless of proprietary networks or email programming.  Will clouds evolve the same way?  Will there be barriers to entry as a cloud provider?  Infrastructure is expensive; global capability more so.  Providers will vie for cloud apps.

Our approach is also unique.  Today, we are launching our initiative.  An introduction and three exciting new introductory white papers all dealing with the cloud: government contracting, tax and service levels, and other contractual performance protections.  We will release case studies in the weeks ahead, providing practical examples based on the white papers and insights into how law and regulation is likely to affect each of these areas.  Where answers are available, we’ll tell you.  Where they are not, we’ll be insightful.  We have assembled a multi-jurisdictional, cross-disciplinary team, a task force of lawyers and professionals dealing with the issues arising in Cloud Computing.  In the weeks and months ahead we’ll keep releasing white papers – antitrust and competition law, e discovery, litigation, insurance, contract law and regulatory compliance.  We will not only deal with U.S. law, but will also provide you with contributions from our lawyers around the world.  Each release will not only provide an individual chapter that is the subject of the release (today we have Government Contracting, Tax and SLA/Performance Protection), but also an updated comprehensive copy of the growing compendium.  Transcending the Cloud will dynamically provide insights as the industry and challenges grow.  Keep a copy handy.  Make sure you check back for updates regularly.  Join us in the conversation.

I want to thank my colleague Adam Snukal for his steady hand and keen insight in helping me to put this Cloud Computing initiative together.  And Kevin Vaarsi, our marketing guru, who coordinated much of the logistics and the planning for our initiative.  Most important, as you will see today and in the months ahead, a team of Reed Smith lawyers who have invested countless hours and done significant research to contribute these white papers and bring you their insights – none of this would be possible without them, and each paper will have names, contact information and biographical information about these terrific professionals.  As our body of work grows, we will make each white paper available as a separate PDF, but we will also update our “Transcending the Cloud” compendium for those of you wanting a constantly updated and growing body of legal and regulatory insight into Cloud Computing in one place.  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 me Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, Adam Snukal, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

This post was written by Paul Bond.

Companies routinely issue communications devices to employees for on-the-job use. Employees routinely use such devices to conduct personal business, wasting company resources and sometimes violating company codes of conduct. Under what circumstances may a company monitor messages to and from an employer-issued device? That question is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case City of Ontario v. Quon.

The CSO Breakfast Club, an organization of Chief Information Security Officers from around the country, recently interviewed Reed Smith attorney Paul Bond about the potential ramifications of the case. 

The City issued Sergeant Quon a pager for work use and he signed an agreement acknowledging he had no expectation of privacy in his communications. When Sergeant Quon kept going over his character quota, a supervisor told him the supervisor would not audit communications, provided Sergeant Quon paid for the overages. A departmental audit revealed that Sergeant Quon was regularly sending highly inappropriate texts to his wife, girlfriend, and a fellow officer. All of them sued the City for violations of their constitutional rights to privacy. The Supreme Court briefing and a transcript of the spirited oral argument are available at SCOTUS Wiki, (neither Legal Bytes nor Reed Smith can vouch for the accuracy of the material or analysis on this external link).

Employers are watching this case closely to see if the nation's highest court will provide any guidance on the ground-rules for monitoring employee use (and abuse) of company-issued communications devices; but whether you want to stay in tune with developments or you need help in this area, contact Paul Bond. Of course, you can always call me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by Judith L. Harris.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed down a unanimous decision in the case of Comcast v. the FCC, holding, in effect, that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") could not use its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Communications Act to exercise broad oversight over the activities of Internet service providers ("ISPs"). The case involved a 2008 decision under prior FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, seeking to enforce 2005 "net neutrality" principles by banning Comcast's blocking or slowing of traffic from broadband subscribers using BitTorrent, an online peer-to-peer file-sharing technology. You can download and/or read the entire case here Comcast v. FCC.

 At first blush, the ruling appears to be a total victory for Comcast but,as no one knows better than Comcast itself, nothing in the Nation’s capital is ever that cut and dried. Thus, Comcast was wise to respond in a conciliatory fashion: "We are gratified by the court's decision today to vacate the previous FCC order. Comcast remains committed to the FCC's existing open internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant internet." . 

Afterall, Comcast is awaiting the FCC's judgment on Comcast's $30 billion merger with NBC Universal. The Commission (along with the Department of Justice) has the power to sideline the deal altogether or to impose conditions that, depending on their severity, could place significant constraints on the business plan of the wanna-be merger partners. Stated another way: Comcast knows that its time for customer golf. Moreover, and possibly even more significant, the only options now available to a highly motivated FCC appear to be far more draconian to the ISP community than the relatively innocuous exercise of power that Comcast successfully challenged in court. The old adage "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

Not that any of this leaves the FCC smiling. From their perspective, the court's ruling could cast a long shadow over the FCC's ability to proceed with its pending rulemaking designed to codify even bolder net neutrality policies across all broadband platforms, including wireless. Moreover, the issue of the reach of the FCC's jurisdiction over Internet services could constrain the FCC's ability to deliver on President Obama's promise of universal broadband access at high speeds and reasonable prices, and the FCC's marquee project: implementation of the National Broadband Plan. That plan was released to Congress by the Agency just a few weeks ago (March 16), amid much fanfare and after a year's worth of intensive effort involving no less than 36 public workshops, nine field hearings, and 31 public notices that produced 75,000 pages of public comment!  

But, soldiers march forward. Only two days after the court's decision, the FCC announced its "Broadband Action Agenda," explaining the purpose and timing of more than 60 rulemakings and other proceedings recommended for action by the FCC in the plan, and quoting FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski defiantly proclaiming: "We are putting the National Broadband Plan into action," immediately adding, "The court decision earlier this week does not change our broadband policy goals, or the ultimate authority of the FCC to act to achieve those goals." Well, maybe not.

The ISPs will undoubtedly act with all deliberate speed to nail down the Comcast victory by vigorously lobbying Capitol Hill to oppose any effort by the FCC (and potentially other providers such as Google and Amazon.com, and tech companies such as Apple), to entreat Congress to mandate network neutrality or to enact legislation giving the FCC clear authority to regulate broadband. From the ISP perspective, even worse could be an effort by the FCC to unilaterally reclassify broadband transmission as a Title II telecommunications service, empowering the FCC (at least until the next court challenge) to regulate with impunity. This latter action, often referred to around town as the "nuclear option," would only require an affirmative vote by three of the five Commissioners, a low hurdle given the unrestrained, unambivalent public reactions of all three of the Democratic Commissioners (including the Chairman) in the immediate aftermath of the court's pronouncement.

This week (on April 14), Chairman Genachowski is scheduled to be the only witness at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. That hearing was originally planned to focus exclusively on the National Broadband Plan. But now, in addition to examining the FCC's substantive proposals, the hearing will likely focus on its power, in light of the Comcast decision, to move forward with its implementation plans. With lobbyists swarming the halls of power, expect fireworks. Hopefully, all-out war won't be the only avenue considered. The public and private stakeholders would do well to take a deep breath and earnestly consider an immediate, good-faith attempt at serious industry self-regulation, with agreed-upon standards of conduct and meaningful enforcement mechanisms.

Time's a-wasting. As the FCC moves to implement the administration's broadband agenda, over at the Federal Trade Commission, net neutrality and open Internet advocates are undoubtedly pondering how best they can use their own powers to protect consumers from potentially abusive trade practices by vertically integrated ISPs with enormous market power in a world where the FCC might, in the end, have limited enforcement tools. Who knows, the FTC and the Antitrust Division might decide that its time to burnish tried and true antitrust laws as a way of curtailing any anti-competitive conduct. Comcast, to be sure, is ahead at half time but, as  they well know, there is still much more of the game to be played.

Whether you want to stay in touch and in tune with developments, you wonder how "net neutrality" and these skirmishes might affect your business; or if you need legal advice and representation, you need look no farther than our very own Judith L. Harris – she's the authority, and she graciously contributed this timely and insightful post. Of course, you can always call me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by Christopher Hackford.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few months ago, Legal Bytes reported some important developments and judicial rulings concerning social media and freedom of the press in the United States (see, Freedom of the Press = Freedom to Tweet). But lest you be lulled into a false sense of security, freedom of the press only applies to the ‘press’ and not to jurors.

You have all seen the motion picture and television courtroom scenes played out numerous times. Evidence is admitted or not admissible. The jury is admonished to disregard certain remarks or testimony as inadmissible or irrelevant. Jurors are told they must reach a verdict on only the evidence that is allowable during the trial - nothing else. Now decades ago, a jury was told not to watch accounts of a case on television, or to listen to such on the radio, or to read newspaper articles about the case. Juries could be sequestered - squirreled away out of sight and, theoretically, out of harmful evidence’s way - until the verdict was rendered and justice done.

But today, with a mobile phone, PDA or any one of literally hundreds of devices – some no larger than a credit card – one can ‘tweet’ (www.Twitter.com), one can post to your or someone else’s wall (www.Facebook.com), one can upload photos (www.flickr.com) or videos (www.YouTube.com) or post to one’s own blog (www.LegalBytes.com). All from the convenience of the palm of your hand, purse or jacket pocket. One can also surf, search, ask and obtain answers across the web, almost instantaneously, with the press of a few buttons or the wave of one’s fingers across a touch screen. The interactive two-way communication and searches for independent information is at odds with our jury system that limits the juror’s knowledge base for decision-making purposes to what’s in her or his head when they walk in along with the evidence that is presented and deemed admissible by the court. Everything else is off limits – at least for administering justice. Although not the subject of this two-part blog posting, Legal Bytes has also covered the growing issue of whether a mindless application of disqualification criteria makes sense simply because you have a ‘friend’ or someone is ‘following’ you among the other thousands or millions of individuals on some social media platform (See, Florida Judges Can't Have Friends).

But now back to our story. Just this past December, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management issued its “Proposed Model Jury Instructions - The Use of Electronic Technology to Conduct Research on or Communicate about a Case”. I know this will surprise you, but the basic do’s and don’ts they proposed are:

• Thou shalt not undertake any independent research, use any outside reference works, dictionaries, surf the web, or use any digital or other means to try and get information about the case or anything related to the case.
• Thou shalt not communicate with anyone about the case – anyone - not even other jurors. No mobile phones, email, Blackberry, iPhone, SMS text messaging, tweets, blogging, chat rooms or social media platforms. None, nada, zilch, zero, null, never. Period.
• Thou shalt decide the case solely on the admissible evidence presented in the courtroom.

Sound familiar? While many of us recognize there are sophisticated rules and regulations established to ensure evidence is presented in a fair manner, consistent with the system of justice - protecting the rights of the accused and the accuser, the plaintiff and the defendant - jurors often are curious – curious about questions that aren’t asked or answered during the course of a trial. In motion pictures or television, we get to go behind the scenes. We can often see what the jury cannot. But real juries may not appreciate, under the constraints of a particular case, why some information is simply not available to them, some questions not permissible, some witnesses never called and some answers never provided. It’s far too tempting to try and find out and with today’s digital technology – well, it’s not that hard to do so – sometimes even believing one can escape detection when doing so.

So stay tuned. In the next installment of this post, Legal Bytes will take you on a brief tour of some court decisions over the last few years, starting from simple emails and online surfing by jurors, to jurors who post blogs in the middle of jury deliberations, to tweets before, during and after multimillion dollar civil trials. Yes, we even have jurors communicating to each other on Facebook during a trial. You just can’t make this up.

While the next installment is pending, if you need to know more – how social media can help or hurt your company in litigation – remember that Reed Smith has teams of litigators who not only know digital (e-)discovery, forensic evidence, security and other technology applicable to legal proceedings, but also know social media – increasingly relevant, for good or bad, in dispute proceedings. Need us to press your suit and avoid being taken to the cleaners? Contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work and stay tuned for Part II – Jurors Behave, or We’ll Throw the Facebook at You!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have been reading Legal Bytes regularly, you know that Lois Thomson here at Reed Smith has been one of the primary people supporting my efforts to transform "legal-ese" into understandable English – no trivial task for those of you who are interacting or have ever interacted with lawyers. So it is with great joy that I was not only able to have her write a post for Legal Bytes, but that I also finally got to edit her article. Hopefully she will smile and agree it's been helpful. So, Lois, thank you, and here is your relevant and very timely note for all the world to see:

"I looked at an email I received from my friend, Robert, and wondered why the subject line was a reply regarding an issue of Legal Bytes that I had proofread for Joe Rosenbaum. 'Are you aware that you have been sending these to me?' Robert's message read. 'It seems like that might have been a mistake.'

"Ouch! A mistake indeed! You see, when Joe sends his documents to me to review, I proof them and make my suggested changes. I then simply hit the forward button to return them to him. Now as many of you email-program (e.g., Outlook) users already know, to make life easier (that's ostensibly what technology is supposed to do), once I start to type in "ro," Rosenbaum, Joseph I.'s name should automatically populate the 'To' field. Oops. Not this time. Instead, my friend Robert's name came up, and without looking – as I'm guessing so many of us routinely do – I hit enter and sent it off, pleased I had been so timely and responsive. Unfortunately, I was responding to my friend Robert, who may happily read Legal Bytes, but not, I suspect, the artist's proof!

"Fortunately, Joe and Robert were gracious about the whole thing and in this case, both felt no harm was done. But what if the message had been from your lawyer or doctor or a rabbi or priest, or was some other communication that was not ultimately meant for public consumption. It was a simple but powerful reminder to me (and one that Joe felt was important enough to ask me to pass it on to you), that while automated tools can make routine tasks like 'field completion' simpler, they can also lead to problems if we rely on them without thinking. Hmmmm, now why can't I remember phone numbers anymore – is it because they are all programmed into every device I own, so that I no longer have to think?"

A helpful reminder that while automated tools are great, they are just that – tools. If we aren't careful, the tools can work against us and not for us, and can create embarrassment at best, liability at worst. Thank you Lois (and Robert).

Need to know more? Contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. Need proofreading skills? If you don't work for Reed Smith, don't call Lois. She's busy helping us every day. Thanks again, Lois.

• 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

Check out MediaPost’s SearchBlog yesterday (A Dream Cloud Computes The Future), which recounts the conversation Joe Rosenbaum had with reporter and blogger Laurie Sullivan about the future of cloud computing. Need to know more about the legal implications and issues? Call Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter keeps hitting the newswires—in this instance, in a matter involving freedom of the press. You might have heard from time to time, especially in high-profile or emotionally charged cases, about judges who have used their power to control proceedings by restricting the use of certain communications equipment and mechanisms from within their courtrooms (e.g., use of mobile phones, video recording equipment, etc.).

From Pennsylvania comes an order from a Dauphin County judge refusing to bar reporters from sending Tweets during the course of a public and high-profile trial. In response to a motion by the defendants counsel, Judge Lewis, in a brief order, noted that ". . . to impose the proposed restriction would be premature and that the restriction itself is overly broad."

In this particular case, the defendants were concerned that reporters, using Twitter inside the courtroom, would broadcast witnesses testimony, which could then be read or seen by other witnesses who were yet to testify. While refusing to ban Twitter to reporters, the judge did order the witnesses to avoid reading or listening to reports concerning the trial.

As icing on the cake, our own Reed Smith lawyers, Tom McGough, Mark Tamburri and Tom Pohl, won the order on behalf of the Associated Press and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Yes, Virginia, there is a place for social media in jurisprudence.

If you remember, Twitter was also the subject of some controversy in Pittsburgh during the G20 Summit last year. In that case, involving freedom of speech, police in Pittsburgh arrested a man who was using Twitter to send messages about the movements of police officers as protests were unfolding. Although the police sought to charge the man with aiding an illegal protest, the man was broadcasting what was easily visible in plain sight.

While commercial cases often involve money or intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, cases are emerging that involve fundamental Constitutional rights. The law will need to move quickly into the digital and social media age in order to keep up. Some courts and judges are doing just that! 

Need to know more? Contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

Back in July, Legal Bytes posted a report (Landlord Can't Let Tweet sMOLDer) about a Twitter "tweet" posted by Amanda Bonnen, that contained the following statement: "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's OK."

Back then we told you that Horizon Group Management, the landlord of the apartment building involved, filed suit in a Cook County Illinois Court for libel, alleging that it was a "malicious and defamatory" tweet about the state of her apartment. 

Well this past Wednesday (Jan. 20, 2010), Cook County Circuit Court Judge Diane J. Larsen dismissed the suit, and Ms. Bonnen's attorney indicated the judge described the posting as too vague to constitute libel under the legal tests applicable to such a claim.

To support a claim of libel, Horizon would have had to show that Ms. Bonnen wasn't merely offering her opinion, that the statement must be reasonably understood by everyone to refer to the specific entity—in this case, this particular Horizon realty company—and that there was actual harm that can be proved, flowing from the statement. The fact that the statement was made on Twitter, and consequently widely available across the Internet, doesn't change the standard one must meet to prove libel, and the judge dismissed the case. 

As you can guess, these aren't the only cases involving defamation in the context of social media. For example, the action against Courtney Love, wife of the late Kurt Cobain, is alive and well. You might recall that case arose when a fashion designer claimed Ms. Love tweeted that the designer was a drug addict, a prostitute and called her a "lying hosebag thief." As we reported in Legal Bytes this past August (Court Orders Google to Turn Over Blogger Identity Information), cases of defamation become even more complex when the identity of the actual "tweeter" is hidden behind a pseudonym.

These cases all hinge upon the friction created by social interaction. Defamation is not a new concept, and whether broadcast over radio waves or propagated across the web, it should come as no surprise that when human beings populate the borderless universe of cyberspace, these interactions can give rise to legal actions. The laws that apply to publicity, privacy, libel, deceptive advertising, unfair competition and intellectual property may need to be applied or viewed differently, but they don’t disappear simply because the content is digital. Need to know more? Contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

“If computers of the kind I have advocated become the computers of the future, then computing may someday be organized as a public utility just as the telephone system is a public utility . . . The computer utility could become the basis of a new and important industry.”

                                      — John McCarthy, MIT Centennial, 1961

“Cloud computing” is a term used to describe the use of computer resources not solely as a communications protocol (e.g., the Internet), nor solely as a content or transaction host (World Wide Web), but as an application development and information processing service. To help explain further, to send an email, much like using the telephone, it makes no difference who your provider or host is or which carrier you use. There is a protocol that allows interoperability across networks and processors, and as long as the sender and recipient have an email address and access to an Internet connection, the email gets through. On the web, with access to the Internet and a browser (technology that displays content and functionality hosted at a particular Internet address), you can interact with the website – you can see the material displayed and you can "select" (click) to enable certain features.

Today, as a general rule, if you wanted to create, edit, spell check, save, send or share most content or information with someone, unless you plan on typing and formatting a very long email, you still need word processing, spreadsheet or presentation software programs to create and upload (communicate or store for display), or to see and use content that you might download. In a cloud-computing environment, all of these functions are resident in the "cloud." Imagine that you no longer needed a desktop or laptop computer processor, and all you had were input and display devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, monitor), which you could either carry or borrow wherever you went. Plug into a universal "outlet," enter your unique pass codes and authentication information, and you have everything you need – where and when you need it. Like telephone, electric or gas service, computing becomes a commodity accessible virtually anywhere and anytime, generally priced by usage, the applications, and the amount and type of storage for which you want and need access.

Cloud-computer services can be sold and paid for using plans not dissimilar to phone service – per call, per minute, unlimited, features, functions – and they disaggregate the user, whether individual or business enterprise, from the procurement, maintenance and operations of the underlying processors and software programs. Clouds can be public – made available to anyone on demand (think Wi-Fi registration based hot spots) or private (large companies can operate or arrange to have someone operate a closed-cloud environment). I summarize the basic characteristics of cloud computing as follows:

• Flexibility – the user can easily modify use, resources, demand, access and virtually every other resource, without the need to purchase or dispose of any equipment or software, other than input and output devices. Increases or decreases in processing, development, storage or other requirements can be managed easily in real time and on an infinitely scalable basis.
• Cost – commodity or utility pricing lowers user costs. Capital expenditures can be eliminated, license fees reduced and access fees managed more efficiently.
• Resources - shared resources enable lower per-user, per-unit pricing, and optimization of peak and non-peak loads across user communities. Resource upgrades and enhancements can be amortized across a broad user base, seamlessly and transparently to the user community. Inter-exchange agreements between cloud providers will enable continuity and recovery, load management, and resource backup capability at optimal prices.
• Independence – time, space and resource constraints become largely irrelevant to the extent Internet or web access is available.
• Interoperability – absent unique or customized requirements that can be managed separately by the user, standardized applications, development tools and protocols are simpler to maintain and operate, debug, update and support. 

While security and privacy is always a concern – more so where data, in addition to processing capability and storage, becomes more concentrated and accessible rather than distributed – more users and businesses will have the potential benefit of stronger security measures than are currently affordable or in use, to the extent cloud providers can develop and implement strong security standards and protocols within their service offerings. 

So who are the actual or prospective players? Well lots of prognosticators and labelers are out there, but here is my list in basic categories:

• Providers are those who procure, create, host and manage cloud resources and then sell access, services, features and functions in a cloud environment – wholesale or retail
• Users are those who need to use and take advantage of cloud services, features and functions, whether individually or as part of a business
• Intermediators are those who create intermediation and aggregation opportunities between and among providers. On the one hand, intermediators can bridge gaps between providers and create interface and sharing environments between or among providers. On the other hand, intermediators may begin finding niches in customizing or aggregating services, features or functions for particular industries or in particular regions.
• Developers and supporters are those who develop utilities, applications, tools, features and functions to enhance the cloud experience, make additional services and applications available, and who maintain and support the efficient functioning of the cloud environment.

There may be others – my list is not intended to be comprehensive or even definitive. I don’t have a crystal ball, so time and experience will determine what we cannot now predict. Four computers, interconnected to respond to the perceived vulnerability of centralized computing, were the origins of the Internet. Distributed computing represented commercial attempts to amortize costs, decentralize institutionalized information, and enable greater redundancy and recovery capability. Networking and web-based computing gave us the ability to communicate, share and store information across multiple processors and devices through share protocols. While it’s still too foggy to tell what the future will bring, cloud computing represents the next big innovative thing in making the power of the computer and the Internet easier to use, more available, more interoperable and more cost-effective.

When the fog starts to lift, we may see clouds on the horizon. Whether they are storm clouds or fluffy wondrous sights of joy, I leave to your imagination. Stay tuned. But no matter what your visions of the future may be, if you see a cloud and you aren’t sure what the legal implications might be, please feel free to contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Time For Change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although reports of dissipating smog may be premature, if postings from Google are to be believed, Los Angeles is officially in the cloud. Google’s online email and collaboration cloud, that is! City employees will now use cloud computing for email and working on collaborative projects together. Google hails cloud computing for the city of Los Angeles as something that “will improve the security and reliability of city email, transitioning from servers in the City Hall basement to hosted, secure data centers.”

Los Angeles isn’t the only place to fall in love with clouds. VISI, the largest provider of data-center and managed-hosting services last month (December 2009), announced a public beta of ReliaCloud – a cloud computing service available to users anywhere. Set up an account online, set up computer servers in one of the VISI data centers, and employee-users can access the service from anywhere – anywhere there’s an Internet browser and connection. Cost? Reportedly, the pricing starts at 5 cents an hour! Welcome to fungible, commodity computing. According to VISI, its cloud service was designed to be reliable, affordable and scalable. The beta is targeted at small- to medium-sized commercial users, and businesses can apply at www.reliacloud.com. And VISI anticipates storage and other services to become available over time as part of a suite of offerings. Just one example among many of companies offering and embracing cloud computing.

The United States isn’t the only country where cloud computing environments are springing up. Back in September, the city of Dongying in China announced a strategic initiative with IBM, where the city is hoping to transform its industrial, petroleum-based environment into a service-driven economy. The cloud will be designed to allow start-up companies to do testing and software development through the web, but will also include electronic government services (e.g., e-services). IBM has also set up cloud computing in the Chinese city of Wuxi, and was recently picked to build another cloud computing platform - Quang Trung Software City – in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon, the former capital of South Vietnam). For you trivia buffs, Quang Trung was an Emperor of Vietnam centuries ago. IBM is another emerging player, along with Microsoft’s Azure, Amazon.com’s EC2, and Google’s AppEngine, to name only a few of the more prominent participants in the growing move to cloud computing environments.

So, if your head is in the clouds or if all of this seems foggy to you, you should consider learning more – especially about the legal implications and issues. And you probably should start doing so BEFORE your IT, Finance, HR, Security, Audit, or Operations people (or maybe even the government regulators), come knocking on the door! Want or need help? Contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. We’ll help get you out of the mist and back on Cloud Nine!

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

Wishing you health, happiness, prosperity and peace in 2010

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

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

-  Joe Rosenbaum

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

Just last month, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee in Florida issued an Opinion that Florida judges may not have social media "friends" if they are lawyers who may appear before them in court. While the average person may question what being a "friend" on any media platform really means in terms of the level or relationship outside the virtual world of web-based interaction – how many of you are "friends" with people you have never met and don't even know? – the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee indicated that their main issue is not fact, but perception.

The Committee expressed concern that the "friend" identifier could create the impression or the appearance in a publicly available forum, that the lawyer might be in a position to influence the judge.

Influence the judge? Hmmm. So, let's see. If I'm a government official or a corporate procurement officer, or perhaps I'm just campaigning for public office, I really can't befriend anyone on any social media platform or network – unless I'm prepared to face potential charges of bribery, accepting bribes, improperly influencing a public official, or being improperly influenced in procurement and purchasing decisions. Can you think of other situations in which acknowledging another individual as a "friend" on a social media platform or social networking site might be considered a violation of some code of conduct? Have you read your employer's code of conduct lately?

Not to worry, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Have you checked those "fan" pages recently? Are you a journalist? Celebrity endorser? Blogger? Check the revised FTC Endorsement Guides carefully. Perhaps you need to disclose your material connection when you became a fan! Oh, and you corporate employees and investment advisors (and journalists) better think twice before becoming a friend or a fan. After all, do you have to disclose to your clients or the Securities and Exchange Commission that you are a fan of "INSERT YOUR FAVORITE BRAND HERE"?

Now I don't want to worry anyone needlessly, so here's a tip for all of you Legal Bytes readers, whether you are a judge (are judges allowed to read Legal Bytes?), a lawyer or simply a normal person: If you wish to recuse yourself from a case, change the venue or forum for a trial, or simply avoid being picked for jury duty, I have a recommendation. Befriend the defendant, become a fan of the company, send a Facebook friend request to as many police officers (or, depending on your preference, inmates) as you can, and become a Twitter "follower" of as many products, services, public officials and political parties as you can.

Much to my regret, I have now been permanently removed from the White House guest list because I have become a fan of the Presidential Portuguese water dog "Bo" - the "First Dog." While it had never occurred to me that being thoroughly engaged by this adorable puppy would get me into trouble, the fact that the dog is "Portuguese" appears to have created the perception that there could be a conflict between my loyalties to our government and Portugal – although I confess to being partial to the food and the Algarve as an occasional vacation spot.

That said, I don't feel alone any more since, even though the pup is officially registered with the American Kennel Club as "Amigo's New Hope," I believe that the President and First Lady Obama, as well as their daughters Malia and Sasha, for whom Bo was an election day promise, are also under investigation for possible ethics violations in connection with their love for Bo. Strange, brave new world.

So keep your web browser tuned (or bookmarked) to www.LegalBytes.com for breaking news. The social media fun is just beginning, and if you haven't checked your company policy lately (or revised it), or if you need help making sense of social media and the legal implications, you've come to the right place. Feel free to contact me—Joe Rosenbaum—or any of the lawyers at Reed Smith you work with. We are happy to help.

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

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

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

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

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

In 1804, William Wordsworth published what is certainly among the most well known and oft-read poems in the English language – it begins, “I wandered lonely as a cloud that floats on high o'er vales and hills, when all at once I saw a crowd, a host, of golden daffodils.”  Now even back in 1804, Wordsworth, no XML programming guru, was already talking about clouds, crowds and hosts . . . 

So we read recently that NetMass, a Texas company, reached a settlement and had a judgment issued in a federal patent case involving a lawsuit by an inventor, Mitchell Prust, alleging that NetMass infringed some cloud computing and cloud storage patents. Mr. Prust had apparently invented a mechanism to allow web browsers to access application programming – a fundamental aspect of cloud computing. The settlement and judgment entered by the Federal Court in Texas (Mitchell Prust v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 2:09-cv-236) notes that NetMass had infringed three of Mr. Prust’s patents and enjoins NetMass from continuing to do so in the future. From current published reports, Mr. Prust also has a lawsuit pending in Federal Court in California against Apple.

This may be just the beginning of a wave of intellectual property lawsuits as cloud computing begins to evolve and become part of a commercial operational toolkit around the globe – not much different from those surrounding ATMs, online banking, networking and other once-emergent technology platforms. Stay tuned. You will be hearing more from us about clouds in the year ahead.

In the meantime, if your head is in the clouds (or perhaps just a fog), and you need help, feel free to contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by John P. Feldman. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puerto Rico Sweepstakes Regulation Revised

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertising Compliance ** Privacy ** Social Media

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

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

About the Long Tail Alliance Program

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

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

About the IAB

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

About Reed Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading...

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

This post was written by Stacy Marcus and Joe Rosenbaum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Long Tail Alliance Program

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

For more information, click here.

About the IAB

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

About Reed Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again in the category of "you can’t really make this up," yesterday the High Court in Britain ordered an injunction served through Twitter – the social networking site.

Donal Blaney, a lawyer, runs a blog called Blaney's Blarney. Another account, named blaneysbarney, was impersonating Blaney, a politically conservative blogger. Inspired by a case in Australia, where Facebook was used to serve a court order, Blaney asked the court to allow him to serve the anonymous Twitter-user with a court order using the very social network the imposter was using – Twitter! As a practical matter, the court order will only actually be served (i.e., the writ received) when that account owner logs in and accesses his or her account on Twitter.

Since access to British courts appeared much more facile than heading to California in the hopes that a U.S. court will deal with the issue and with Twitter in the United States, he opted to petition the High Court in Britain to allow him to serve the order using Twitter. In the United Kingdom, the law permits an injunction to be delivered through electronic means (e.g., telecopy or even email), so in principle, no new law has actually been created, although this is certainly a novel twist to the existing law – especially since the identity of the imposter account owner was not known to Blaney.

The British High Court agreed, noting that issuing the writ using the Tweeting facility appeared to be the best way to get to the individual behind the anonymous tweeting. As has been noted in Legal Bytes previously, obtaining the identity of anonymous account holders on social media networks can be difficult, with favorable results far from a certainty in all jurisdiction and legal venues.

In the Australian case reported last year, which did not involve impersonation, a couple in Australia defaulted on their mortgage with MKM Capital, but were successfully able to avoid being served with papers in person. They ignored emails and never showed up in court. So, a Supreme Court judge in Australia’s Capital Territory agreed to let MKM Capital serve papers over the Internet. Facebook profiles (you know, those great facts and tidbits you share with everyone in your social media network and the public) had birth dates, email addresses and all the information necessary to satisfy the judge that they could indeed communicate and contact the defendants using Facebook.

Getting back to the recent UK order, online impersonation of sports figures and entertainment celebrities has become an increasing problem and nuisance on social media networks, and Twitter has even reacted to the problem by allowing celebrity "Tweeters" to have their authenticity certified with an icon (similar to a "seal") that is attached to their real profile pages.

The ability to serve legal papers and court orders using digital means through social media – imagine serving my avatar in a virtual world – may have wide-ranging implications for bringing legal actions against those who seek to use anonymity or pseudonymity to insulate themselves from detection when engaging in inappropriate or illegal activities. That said, if the actual account owner is anonymous, how will we know who they are even after they are "served," unless the host or ISP is somehow bound by the service of process.

Stay tuned. Social media is turning the legal world upside down, too . . . let us know if we can help keep you upright. Contact me if you have questions about this or any other matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a speech in November 1942, Sir Winston Churchill remarked, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

So, if you have been following along with the original announcement and each of the following “principle summaries” posted on Legal Bytes:

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

. . . and, if you have read the actual report, then you will appreciate that “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising”, consistent with the Federal Trade Commission’s support of industry self-regulation, are patterned after the highly successful record of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in regulating the traditional advertising industry for more than 30 years. A record that includes industry collaboration, self-regulatory principles and monitoring, and close collaboration with the Federal Trade Commission over the years, as the industry and advertising models evolved.

While one is always careful to ensure that at some point governmental intervention may be necessary to protect consumers from those who abuse the system or violate the law, the question to ask is whether and to what extent new or different regulation is required. That is certainly a question being asked (and being answered) by a coalition of 10 consumer advocacy and privacy groups in its recently released report, “Online Behavioral Tracking and Targeting Concerns and Solutions”, in response to the industry principles. More importantly, one may ask whether a concretized and codified piece of legislation is likely to remain relevant or even defensible in the face of innovation and technology that could not have been predicted five years ago and, I believe, will remain relatively unpredictable in the future.

That said, some aspects of advertising are predictable. Development, display and distribution mechanism will evolve dynamically as technology and innovation continue. Notions of consumer privacy and data protection will continue to evolve and be difficult to harmonize across nations, across cultural and local boundaries, and—because privacy is and has always been context specific—in time and space. What might have been considered private in 16th century France is very different from the concept of privacy that permeates the hearts and minds of citizens of Japan or Brazil today. Indeed, even the role of government in protecting one’s right to privacy and the use of information about oneself, is an ever-changing one. Advertising models and economics will continue to change, with metrics and quantification methodologies being sparred and argued over, recognizing that even the roles of advertisers, agencies, media buyers, and broadcast and publishing networks, as well as ISPs, search engine, browser and web hosting companies—the technology players—are and will continue to change. Wireless and mobile devices will continue to expand the domain of advertising and challenge our ability to capture consumers’ interest on tiny mobile screens, while the opposite is taking place in our living rooms—with the separation of desktop or laptop computing and home television and entertainment centers being increasingly irrelevant (and screens becoming larger). Oh, and did we forget to mention how online gaming and the interplay between gaming console, entertainment and product placement, virtual worlds and display advertising, are all blurring (pardon the pun) right before our eyes?

So if you have ever attempted to change a tire on a moving automobile, you have a vision of what the “industry” is and will look like in the future. Under these circumstances, traditional regulation as we knew it, may not make sense. What might make sense is a more dynamic system of regulation. One that is more flexible, more adaptable and more capable of interacting and reacting to changing circumstances, mechanisms, technology and the environment. Perhaps allowing the industry and the Federal Trade Commission, in conjunction with other agencies already tasked with the mission of protecting consumers within their particular areas of authority (e.g., FDA, FCC, FAA, and the list goes on) to develop self-regulatory enforcement mechanisms, referral mechanisms, and a track record, may be the best way to determine what, where and when regulation may be needed.

In the meantime, you may want to ask yourself if you are misbehaving as an advertiser or marketing professional, and register and listen in to our “Are You Behaving Badly” Teleseminar Sept. 30, which will tackle current issues in global regulation of behavioral advertising.

As always, I and my colleagues in the Advertising Technology & Media law practice at Reed Smith are ready to assist in guiding, advising and providing legal support where and when you need it. We’ve been changing tires for more than a century!

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

Veoh Networks, which makes both professionally created programming content and entertainment, as well as user-generated content, available through its website, has often lived in the shadow of Google, YouTube, and Apple’s iTunes. Earlier this week, Veoh got a bit of sunshine.

Two years ago, Universal Music Group (a company owned by Vivendi SA), sued Veoh for copyright infringement. The suit alleged that Veoh’s business was essentially based on the infringing use of copyrighted works of others, notably from Universal’s viewpoint, musical groups and artists.

Veoh countered with the fact that it used filtering technology to detect and remove protected content and, in the words of Judge Matz, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, when Veoh “did acquire knowledge of allegedly infringing material . . . . it expeditiously removed such material . . .,” vindicating Veoh supporters who have consistently maintained Veoh is protected by the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This is the second time the legal sun has shone on Veoh. A similar lawsuit brought by Io Group, an adult entertainment company, was also decided in favor of Veoh last year.

Legal Bytes has previously reported the criteria necessary to comply with the DMCA (you did read that, right?), thus you know that a key requirement for insulation from liability for copyright infringement under the DMCA is the question of whether, when a company becomes aware of infringing content, it promptly removes it from use and display. The California Court rules that Veoh had done just that, and consequently the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA served to protect Veoh from liability in this case. Judge Matz’ order notes: "The DMCA does not place the burden of ferreting out infringement on the service provider". You can read the full text of the Summary Judgment Order of the California Court.

Universal is expected to appeal, claiming the Judge’s order fails to adequately take into account Universal’s claim that everyone connected with Veoh must have known about rampant infringement and that alone should sustain the ‘knowledge’ which would remove the shield from their entire business model – a shield otherwise available to web hosting companies. However, it may well be an uphill battle since the Court specifically addressed this issue, noting “If such general awareness were enough to raise a 'red flag,' the DMCA safe harbor would not serve its purpose".

If you are concerned you don’t know enough about digital rights management; compliance with the provisions of the DMCA; about liability applicable to website owners and operators or the rights available to content owners, the Advertising Technology & Media group at Reed Smith is for you. Try us. You might like us. Feel free to call me or, if you are already a client, call the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work. 

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

This post was written by Andrew Boortz and Joseph Rosenbaum.

Over the last several months, France’s Parliament has been focusing on the issue of Internet piracy. In May, both houses of the French parliament passed the so-called “three strikes” law which would have given an independent body the ability to disconnect file-sharers from their ISPs. In June, the law was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council because, under French law, the power to force such disconnection could only come through issuance of a court order. In response, French President Nicolas Sarkozy gave the first Presidential speech to the French Parliament in 150 years and passionately defended regulation of Internet piracy. 

After President Sarkozy's speech, the French Senate drafted and passed a modified version of the “three strikes” law which would allow alleged infringers to present their case to a French court, prior to losing their Internet connection. Judges in these hearings would have the power to: (1) order disconnection of the alleged infringer's Internet access; (2) fine the alleged infringer up to €300,000; and/or (3) sentence the alleged infringer to a two-year prison term. Just yesterday (September 15^th), the French National Assembly gave preliminary approval to the measure by a vote of 285-225 and now, a joint committee will unify the Senate and Assembly versions and present a final bill to both houses for a vote on September 22^nd.

In looking back over the piracy-related events of this year, it may well turn out that 2009 will be remembered as a watershed year in the struggle between Internet pirates and rights holders.  With the Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum verdicts in the States, the pseudo-shuttering of the Pirate Bay in Sweden, the implementation of a self-imposed, self-regulatory “three strikes” policy by Ireland’s largest ISP (created under threat of massive litigation) and now France’s revised and revitalized new “three strikes” law, the global community is indeed tilting towards greater sanctions and regulation of Internet piracy.

This raises questions for technology innovators. For example, Facebook, which according to a CNN report out today has a social network population nearly as large as the population of the United States, will soon launch a voice chat feature.  Most likely, the feature could be used to stream media across the globe as well as the nation? Would Facebook be liable for creation and distribution of such a feature, which is similar to that which created liability for the Pirate Bay creators for their torrent-tracking website?

Need help? Confused by the torrent of information, technology and legal rights?  Need to know more? Contact Andrew (“Drew”) Boortz, in our Washington, D.C. office, call me or contact the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by Adam Snukal and Joseph Rosenbaum.

Well, here it is. A summary of the last of the seven principles contained in the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles released by the Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, in concert with the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The seven principles are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under normal circumstances, this post would appear in the Useless But Compelling Facts section of Legal Bytes. But although this is compelling, it is not quite useless. 

It appears that a South African IT company (Unlimited IT) was so frustrated by the level of broadband Internet service it was receiving from Telkom, that it challenged Telkom to a race with a carrier pigeon. As you might have guessed, the absence of significant competition limited Unlimited IT’s choices of providers, hence the frustration.

The challenge was a simple one. The company would send a homing carrier pigeon from Howick (on the coast) to Unlimited’s head office in Durban, and at the same time upload the data using the ISP lines with the file addressed to the same location.

So they tied a 4 gigabyte memory stick data card to Winston’s (the pigeon’s) leg and released him to hone it on "home." Well, it took good old Winston, depending on which agency you listen to, somewhere between one to two hours to make the journey of less than 60 miles. Are you ready? By the time two hours had elapsed . . . . here it comes . . . . less than 4 percent (yes, less than 4 PERCENT) of the data had made the trip to its destination. We really can’t make this up.

As reported in The Christian Science Monitor, Kevin Rolfe, head of information technology at the Unlimited Group, reported that "Winston arrived after two hours, six minutes, and 57 seconds," but "when we finally stopped the computer, about 100 megs had transferred, which is about 4 percent of the total."

So next time you think your network or the Internet servers are for the birds, let’s be a little less insulting to our fine feathered friends.

If you need to know more, please don’t call me. I can’t explain it either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost down to the wire, here is the next installment summarizing the sixth of the seven principles contained in the Self-Regulatory Online Behavioral Advertising Principles released by the Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, in concert with the Council of Better Business Bureaus. For reference, the seven enumerated principles are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference, here are the seven enumerated principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have been wondering what happened to the third grade line “there’s a fungus among us,” we have the answer. It seems a “tweet” made available May 12, 2009 on Twitter contained the following statement: ". . . Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's OK." Since the tweet is alleged to be available publicly for the world to see on Twitter, that didn’t seem particularly humorous to the management of the apartment building in which the Tweeter lives.

So non-humorous in fact, that Horizon Group Management, landlord of the apartment building in question, has filed suit in a Cook County Illinois Court for libel, alleging this was a "malicious and defamatory" tweet about the state of her apartment. The complaint further contends that because the "statement damaged the plaintiff's reputation in its business, the statement is libel per se." Horizon is seeking a minimum of $50,000 in damages and that isn’t birdseed. You can read a copy of the complaint right here.

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

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

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

So here’s the scoop:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was written by E. David Krulewicz and Cindy Schmitt Minniti.

Facebook, MySpace and Twitter have become household names, a ubiquitous part of the daily lives of many and often a tool for keeping in touch with friends and family. These websites are increasingly being used by individuals to document their daily lives and activities, voice their concerns and post their opinions for the world to read and to respond. The business community has also turned to these “social media” websites as means for marketing their brands and, in some instances, for obtaining information about current employees and prospective job applicants. A series of recent cases reminds us there are significant risks related to the posting and/or use of information discovered on “social media” websites.

For example, in Pietrylo and Marino v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, a case pending in the Unites States District Court for the District of New Jersey, two individuals sued their former employer after they were terminated for posting complaints about their workplace on an invitation-only discussion forum on MySpace.com. Much to the employees’ surprise, managers from Hillstone Restaurant Group were able to access this discussion board (although the parties dispute whether the managers had a right to do so) and were less than pleased with what they read. The employees were quickly terminated and a lawsuit followed. 

In their complaint, the former employees assert their employer not only violated state and federal Wiretap and Stored Communications Acts by accessing the invitation-only forum, but wrongfully terminated them in violation of New Jersey’s public policy favoring free expression and privacy as embodied in the U.S. and the New Jersey Constitutions. Their employer has denied the claims and asserts the plaintiffs were “at-will” employees who could be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.

Ultimately, the question of liability may hinge upon whether the employees had a right to privacy for statements made online and whether the employer has a right to make disciplinary decisions based on an employee’s off-duty conduct.

Although legal commentators and privacy advocates debate how the trial will unfold when the case goes to trial later this summer, they all agree the case highlights real- world issues that can follow an individual’s seemingly innocent decision to post his or her thoughts on a social networking website. This is far from an isolated incident – indeed, the sports media recently reported a similar incident involving the Philadelphia Eagles’ termination of a long-time employee for disparaging the team’s management and its decision to release a prominent player on his Facebook page.  

While it is unclear if any of the companies in the cases above had a policy or provided instruction to their employees on these issues, it should not surprise you that increasingly business employers are finding they must do so. Clearly, before making decisions or taking action against employees for online, but off-duty conduct, employers should seek legal counsel from lawyers who understand these issues and can guide you in this dynamically evolving environment – where federal and state (and sometimes municipal or local) law may apply and little, if any, precedent currently exists. Worried? Need help? Need to understand more? Contact E. David Krulewicz or Cindy Schmitt Minniti or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you work. 

Update:  Today, May 20th, after this story was posted, the U.S. House of Representatives also approved the bill regulating some common credit card and gift card industry practices. It is likely President Obama will sign the bill once it arrives on his desk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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