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

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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A U.S. Circuit Court in the District of Columbia has upheld the FCC's rule that requires telecommunications carriers to obtain prior "opt-in" consent from customers before disclosing their personal information to joint venture partners or independent contractors for marketing purposes. The rule, which was adopted in 2007, covers all Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and also applies to service providers offering VoIP (Voice Over IP) services to customers. For those who don’t stay updated on what the FCC rules mean by CPNI, it includes information such as the phone numbers called by a consumer, the frequency, duration, and timing of the calls and any additional services the consumer is receiving (e.g., call waiting). Our telecommunications experts expect the FCC to enforce this rule aggressively. If you want to read the case yourself, go to National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. FCC , but if you really want to understand what it means to you, contact Robert H. Jackson or Judith L. Harris in our Washington, DC Office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move over “Dot Com” and other “dots” you have come to know and adore. Soon you may be able to purchase a top-level domain corresponding to almost any word or phrase, including your name or brand. ICANN, which administers domain names, is accepting comments on its new Draft Applicant Guidebook; but if you really want expert guidance and advice on what this means to you and why you should prepare yourself for the changes, read our bulletin Branded Dot Com Internet Domain Names, and then contact John Hines, our resident authority Advertising Technology & Media Law partner, by email or by phone at +1 312 207 3876. Dot’s nice!

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

The NFL Players Association was recently ordered to pay $7 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages to retired football players who claimed they were excluded from lucrative marketing deals. The class action claimed the “Madden” interactive football games, and deals involving sports card and sponsorships, intentionally scrambled images of retired players to avoid paying royalties. Active players received royalties for their images, but retired players’ images were scrambled. Now normally that might be a key question of fact to be determined by a jury. Unfortunately, there was a smoking gun! Someone at NFLPA wrote to Electronic Arts, publisher of the popular Madden games, explaining that unless they scrambled the retired players’ images, payments would be required. Oops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FTC issued its Final Rule concerning certain aspects of the CAN-SPAM Act May 12, 2008. The Final Rule: (a) allows multiple marketers to designate an otherwise legally qualified entity as the single “sender” for purposes of compliance. The sender still must comply with the opt out, identification and other requirements of the Act, but no longer must be the entity that controls all the content or determines all the email addresses to which the message will be sent. In practice, this means only the designated sender (not the other marketers) needs to honor opt-out requests, and only the designated sender needs to have a physical address in the message; (b) prohibits conditioning an opt-out request on paying a fee or providing some personal information other than an email address; (c) allows senders to use a P.O. Box as the physical address if they have accurately registered the P.O. Box with the United States Postal Service; and (d) defines the word “person” to include business entities. As part of its ruling, the FTC also refused to change the amount of time (10 business days) a sender has to comply with an opt out request from an email recipient, and also rejected putting any time limits on how long an opt-out request from a recipient would remain valid and in effect.

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

John Hines in our Chicago office is one of the authors of “Anonymity, Immunity and Online Defamation: Managing Corporation Exposures,” published in the Sedona Conference Journal and cited by the 7th Circuit. Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit rendered a decision many think may erode immunity accorded to ISPs, websites and services with defamatory content posted on their sites (Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com). But diid you know that last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court rendered a significant decision recognizing a privacy interest in subscriber data which may impact corporations’ ability to pierce anonymity (State v. Reid). John has authored a Reed Smith Bulletin noting this extraordinary decision, departing from U.S. Constitutional standards and holding that the right to privacy extends to subscriber data in the possession of an ISP. The case involves a company that gave local police the IP address, registered to Comcast, of an employee on leave who visited a company supplier’s website, making unauthorized changes. After she was indicted, lawyers moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that without a valid subpoena, the employee’s expectation of privacy barred Comcast’s disclosure. New Jersey agreed, expressly extending its State “Constitutional” right of privacy to subscriber data provided to ISPs, noting “[u]sers make disclosures to ISPs for the limited goal of using that technology and not to promote the release of personal information to others.” Given the state of technology, the “IP addresses cannot be matched to an individual user without the help of an ISP,” and users have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Although the ruling is in the context of a criminal case, it will likely present challenges for corporations pursuing civil remedies and seeking to pierce the anonymity of individuals responsible for defamation and other speech torts. John and a team of Reed Smith lawyers know this area—reach out to him.

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

According to a report in Media Week, advertising spending for advertising in videogames will reach about $1 billion by 2012. Advertising in video games can take a number of forms: in-game advertising, which is preformatted ads that appear within the game itself; advergames, which are games constructed around a particular brand or product in order to highlight and promote that product or brand; context-sensitive or dynamic advertising, which is similar to in-game advertising, but rather than static advertisements, can be contextually modified in a number of ways depending on when, where and how the in-game scene is viewed. Most of that growth is projected in the casual, online, web game world catering to a broader audience than hard core console gamers. The logic is that people are more willing to accept advertising in return for free game playing on the web; and absent a dynamic Internet connection with more user acceptance than is evidenced to date, console gaming provides fewer opportunities for placing context sensitive or behavioral advertising.

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

Did you know that Louisiana offers a 20 percent tax credit against expenditures for video game developers and certain other interactive digital media companies that are based there? This digital media tax credit is not unique to Louisiana. In 2005, Atlanta began a program of providing tax incentives to digital media, and a number of other places have begun to attract development using tax incentives as well.

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

It’s all about the advertising. Get it? In 2007, researchers estimate that there were well more than 2 billion views of progressive download or streaming media every month! That doesn’t even include user-generated content. Translated into dollars, that means that revenue from advertising associated with streaming video and audio grew to about $1.37 billion—just under 40 percent growth from the year before. Still not convinced, almost half a billion dollars were generated from pre-roll advertising—the ads shown before a streamed television program. Don’t expect these numbers to start falling anytime soon. Even if the economy slows in 2008, the relatively cost-effective ability to create, distribute and measure digital advertising across a variety of media platforms and formats, wired and wireless, will likely not slow down. Go Giants! Go Gadgets! Go Widgets!

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

Facebook has built a highly popular business, but it turns out making that popularity profitable appears to depend, in large measure, on advertising. Sound familiar? So Facebook announced a new program, Beacon, an online tracking tool. No, online tracking certainly isn’t new: companies track where your browser has been and your online activity, and routinely serve up ads based on “preferences”—where you have been, what you look for, and what you purchase. But that takes place behind the scenes—you just see the results: relevant, targeted advertising.

Facebook has taken online tracking one step farther: Beacon sends messages telling your Facebook buddies what you are buying and, in some cases, what you are doing. So don’t plan that surprise trip to Puerto Rico just yet—buying a ticket might ruin the surprise. In fact, don’t come back from the trip and rate the hotel—your friends who weren’t invited will know you’ve been there.

Facebook faced criticism last year when its “News Feed” function came under fire. Media and industry pundits and Facebook executives note often schizophrenic and hypocritical marketplace attitudes. Indeed, there is some irony to be considered when the generation that posts profiles, adding everything from drinking, sexual preferences, and religious affiliations, to family videos, in blatantly public web-spaces, complains about privacy. But consumers still distinguish between their choice to share, and allowing a host to decide what, when, where and how to share information about them, or whether to characterize activities as some form of an “endorsement without consent” to their friends.

As usual, privacy and consumer advocacy groups were poised to file complaints with the FTC, right on the heels of investigations already launched by several Attorneys General into Facebook’s privacy practices. The New York Attorney General has issued a subpoena to Facebook for copies of complaints about “inappropriate solicitation of underage users and inappropriate content on the site.” As innovators have learned, success shines a spotlight that creates a glow—and discloses warts; let’s see if they can keep Facebook blemish-free.

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

Webkinz? Barbie Girls? Be-Bratz? Club Penguin? Never heard of these? Your 6-year old has. At a time when advertising and marketing to children is in the cross-hairs of regulatory agencies, virtual worlds are discovering that imagination can run wild in an environment where children—some as young as 5 or 6 years old—can shop, adopt pets, and play dress-up.

Remember virtual pets? You could purchase a small, self-contained computer (of course it wasn’t marketed as a computer, but as a digital companion) with names like Tamagotchi or Giga Pets—often with a tiny display that had the “pet’s” image.

Small buttons on the outside of the casing allowed you to feed your pet or wash it, and there were even pets that could interact with other pets (e.g., Digimon). If you didn’t treat your pet right it might even die!

Now toys purchased at retail stores—toys for young children—are showing up with flash drives which, when plugged into a computer USB port, unlock features and hold the keys to virtual worlds where children can play—in dollhouses, shopping malls, with pets and characters. Building brand awareness is critical for marketing-driven companies, and building brand awareness in young children who may carry the imprints into their teenage and adult lives…well, you know…. Next up, potty-training your virtual baby. Stay tuned.

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

Years ago, a number of companies hoped that by offering to simplify financial record-keeping and collect your financial information in one place, consumers would find it easier than trying to keep track of all of the numbers, codes and IDs they have to contend with in the real world. The concept fizzled, primarily because there was resistance to giving one website all the information—putting all your nest eggs, so to speak, in one basket. Now, some companies are hoping to revive the concept, this time with the lure of education, advertising and sponsorship.

Although the basic idea remains, the new aggregation model uses sponsored links—recommendations based on an analysis of consumer data and financial information—all geared to educating consumers about the availability of financial products and services. Just as search engines accumulate information about browsing—to prioritize and serve advertising believed to be of higher value to the individual—these new sites use the same model to recommend financial services. If you use a credit card to purchase airline tickets, the site might recommend or display an advertisement for an affinity credit card tied to an air carrier or one which offers points for your purchases. Use an overdraft line of credit for your checking account? You might see an advertisement or recommendation to consider a home equity line of credit to potentially lower your tax bill while you borrow.

While advertising-supported revenue models may have greater appeal from an economic viewpoint and may attract financial institution sponsors and advertisers, these sites still have to overcome consumer discomfort with making all—or a significant portion—of their nonpublic financial information available at a single point of aggregation. With the identity theft, data breach and privacy issues front and center in the past few years, one has to wonder if the power of advertising can overcome that anxiety.

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

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

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

Recently lawyers have begun to debate the question of just how much control advertisers can exert when paying for product placements or branded entertainment before the line between First Amendment expression by the creative staff putting together the program and the financial subsidies from advertisers is crossed. Now, the Ninth Circuit has dealt with a similar question relating to the immunity that interactive computer service providers have typically enjoyed under the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”). The CDA insulates service providers from liability so long as the service provider remains a publisher of information and content of others (there are exceptions, so the immunity is not blanket and you should always consult legal advice for specifics that apply to your situation). That said, a company that operates an online web service that specializes in matching roommates based on their preferences has been held in violation of the Fair Housing Act because a questionnaire put together by the company asks for certain demographic information that, when posted on the website, could be used by users and site visitors to discriminate against others. The company, Roommates.com, asked users to disclose information, among other things, about roommate preferences such as age, sex, children, etc. The Ninth Circuit held that although Roommates.com was immune as long as it was simply enabling the distribution or display of information provided by its members, when it became an information content provider, it lost immunity with respect to that activity and information. And by putting together the questionnaires and soliciting their preferences in response, Roommates.com was not simply posting content authored by users, but rather was eliciting specfic information that could be abused and that might or might not have been voluntarily posted or disclosed absent the questionnaires.

Hmmmm…user profiles, play lists, segmented marketing, asking consumers to participate in promotions…this is an interesting test of the limitations of the CDA to protect and insulate interactive online service providers from liability. As social networks, virtual worlds and other digital arenas that don’t simply enable but also solicit or encourage certain information to be provided, and as web services become more targeted, focused and segmented to match consumer preferences, the immunity is likely to be tested further. Stay tuned.

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

Studies now show that marketing professionals looking to attract today’s generation of social networking, mobile messaging, interactive gaming young people might well experiment with more digital features that one can play and interact with on the Internet. If you responded to last month’s Legal Bytes “Useless But Compelling Facts” (or you peeked at the answer below), you know that a widget refers to a computer program that allows Web pages to be sophisticated and interactive—using graphics, animation, audio-visual effects and user-generated content. While advertisers lose control over where these little widgets are placed (e.g., next to a competitor’s widget), giving consumers—especially young people (another issue for marketing to children?)—a premium or incentive is more likely to get them to put advertising content on their pages. It appears, at least according to one study, that when kids are given a choice of what they want to appear on their pages, especially when some “goodie” is part of the offering (a game, free download, coupon, etc.), they are more likely to choose to use advertisers’ content, than if it is “pushed” to them.

Although using widgets as a promotional tool doesn’t guarantee a successful advertising campaign, especially if the product or service isn’t up to par, widgets represent another arrow in the quiver of advertising and marketing professionals to personalize and target audiences. Some social networking sites block users from putting up widgets, or selectively enable widgets based on endorsements or the protection of intellectual property rights. Widgets also represent another challenge to traditional advertising economics. Since users choose when and where to post the widget applications, the widget creator—generally a hosting, server or similar technology or digital graphics firm—is the only entity getting paid, and beyond that, advertising (and thus advertising revenue) is not tracked.

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

New York’s Attorney General has just settled actions against Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular Wireless for promoting products and services using “adware”—the first time a law enforcement agency has held an advertiser responsible for ads displayed through adware.

These settlements require the advertisers (and affiliates—presumably sales agents and promotional partners) to give consumers full disclosure of any adware (including adware bundled in other software); ensure advertising has a conspicuous, identifiable brand; obtain consent from the consumer to download and allow the adware to operate on the computer; and make it reasonably simple for a consumer to actually remove the adware from his or her computer. The settlements require these three companies to investigate how their online advertising is being distributed; and if the delivery mechanism violates the terms of the settlement (or the law), the advertisers must take immediate stops to cease use of the offending adware programs. Priceline, Travelocity, and Cingular have also agreed to pay penalties and investigatory costs to the State of New York.

To those of you familiar with the old saying “Caveat emptor,” we can now add “Let the Advertisers Beware.”
 

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

The National Advertising Division has determined that when an online dating service advertises “Better first dates,” it’s puffing and not deceptive advertising. Sounds like my university dating experience—no real expectations. But if you say “more second dates,” which is comparative in nature, you better be able to substantiate it or you can’t do it. Similarly, saying “finding great people to date is easier” must also be supported by evidence (“easier” is not subjective or puffery, but is determinable statistically).

In case you didn’t know, the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) is part of the National Advertising Review Council (“NARC”), the same folks who bring you the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (“CARU”), all under the umbrella of the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”). It is not in any way associated with the FTC, OFCOM or SETI. Oh, and F U KN RD THS MSSG, U KN WRK THER.

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

That’s what the Center for Democracy and Technology says in a report issued this past March. Internet surfers are often tricked into downloading programs that barrage them with pop-up ads, potentially pose a privacy risk, and are just plain annoying. Here’s how the Center connects the dots: An advertiser (or its agency) makes a deal with an “adware” company. A user clicks on the ad, the adware company gets paid. The adware company needs a company that furnishes “client-side” software (those “install” packages that add “toolbars” to your browser or “plug-ins” to your applications) so the adware gets inserted into a software bundle when you install the software. Guess what—the software distributor gets paid by the adware company each time that happens, too! If that were all, you would think advertisers could easily control arrangements with adware companies and, correspondingly, software distribution companies working under the direction of those adware companies. But you knew it wasn’t going to end here.

Advertisers and agencies often work through affiliate networks. They get paid to place the ads (think “media buyer” with a technology hat)—banners, pop-ups, sponsored links, pop-unders, search engine ads. The broader the reach, the more they get paid. Some affiliate networks have other affiliate networks they use to further ensure online advertising is all over the place (and revenue increases correspondingly). There are affiliate networks that place blind advertising—their clients don’t know where ads are placed. Website operators, hosting companies and Internet service providers are also enlisted to distribute software through websites and often have developed a network of distributors. Remember, the goal of advertising is to reach as many relevant consumers as possible—limiting how, where, when and to whom adware is available is not exactly consistent with limiting the message or the medium.

Thus, for consumers and regulators it is not simple to figure out how an advertisement arrived at your computer from its origins at the advertiser. The paths may be different for each ad and for each consumer—adding to the complexity of fixing responsibility. Hmmm.

Often, the financial incentive is so great that the operator of a website will push adware onto users’ computers without consent. In many cases, neither the advertiser, nor the adware creator is likely to find out. With such a distributed, diverse and indirect chain of relationships and payments, no wonder I keep getting those pesky pop-ups! A user might not have a clue why a particular ad is showing up and, significantly, even if a consumer responds to the ad, the advertiser may have no way of knowing if the adware was placed without consent—in violation of the advertiser’s policies and best intentions.

Does your company unwittingly contribute to the problem (or ignore it)? Do you have policies (which translate into legal obligations)? Do you require monitoring, audit reports and enforcement? Why not? I like advertising, but not the kind that stems from software installed on my computer without my permission. If financial incentives stimulate (or tacitly condone) proliferation of poor practices, changing the financial incentives, especially if impermissible activities are detected, can change the practices. Would you prefer to have your company and its brand names highlighted in reports by or to the FTC? That’s where you don’t want your name to pop up!

Need to understand more? Need help? That’s why we have an Advertising, Technology & Media law group—we understand your ads, the technology and the media. Contact me if you do.

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

Web-based videos, through links, feeds or user uploads, are generating significant legal and commercial interest these days. Advertisers are also quick to recognize the potential “buzz” marketing opportunities enabled by the use of the Internet and digital audiovisual technology. User-generated content draws consumers to websites, powerful magnets for advertising messages targeted to those consumers. But beware: Simply because a consumer creates the content, doesn’t mean it is immune from standard legal tests for advertising, endorsements, publicity and product liability.

A lawsuit has recently been filed against one online video-sharing network—Veoh—alleging it allowed video works owned by an adult entertainment company to be viewed through Veoh’s website without authorization. The claims of copyright infringement could be an important test of how the courts view sites that enable sharing or feeds of audiovisual works. Although there are a growing number of popular user-generated content sites such as IFILM, YouTube, Guba, Yahoo! and Google, these sites often have very different policies and some, but not all, of them review user-generated content before it is posted—either to ensure it meets guidelines or to confirm that the user’s tags are accurate.

Earlier this month, the New York State Consumer Protection Board published an official warning about content available on Google Video, the new Google site for user-generated content. Because videos are uploaded by users, Google Video relies on tags (labels which describe the content) which are input and generated by the users. Since the content is not indexed or catalogued by Google, a search will turn up whatever the user submits—and that is what has irritated the New York authorities. As with many websites that allow user-generated content to be uploaded for viewing, Google warns users about uploading obscene or illegal material or items protected by copyright, but currently has no mechanism for filtering it out.

In a move widely viewed as adding an air of legitimacy to these sites, Warner Bros. agreed to allow Guba to distribute some of its television shows and motion pictures, online. NBC is allegedly planning to make clips of some of its most popular programs available to YouTube to promote its fall programming lineup. NBC’s decision is reportedly coupled with advertising commitments for both companies in broadcast television medium and the Internet. That should come as no surprise since advertising is what is usually at the root of all of these revenue models—a fact that has not escaped broadcast network executives.

Also this month, a number of leading television production and motion picture companies joined forces in filing suit against Cablevision, one of the largest cable television companies in the United States. The action asks the U.S. District Court in New York to declare the time-shifting service Cablevision has announced, but not yet offered, in violation of U.S. copyright law. Cablevision has countered that time-shifting of programming by consumers is legal. Unlike an “on-demand” service which would record everything and replay programs when selected by the consumer, Cablevision intends to offer subscribers a specific amount of allocated storage space on the network. Analogous to an outsourced set-top box or digital video recording device that a consumer might purchase, Cablevision will offer consumers an opportunity to buy storage space and use it to record and play back programs and then erase them to free space for new programs—no different than if the storage medium was sitting in their living rooms. Stay tuned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In New York’s Westchester County, legislators are proposing a new law to compel commercial businesses (including home offices) that have an open wireless access point to have the “network gateway server” fitted with a firewall to block intrusions. Under the proposed legislation, not only may “public Internet access” not be provided without a gateway server equipped with a firewall, but any business or home office that stores personal information as well must install a server with a firewall—even if the wireless connection is encrypted and not open to the public. Publicly available Internet access sites would have to post a sign: “You are accessing a network which has been secured with firewall protection. Since such protection does not guarantee the security of your personal information, use discretion.” Come on.

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

Want some scary statistics for Halloween? In the first six months of 2005, the average number of “phishing” e-mails went from about 3 million to more than 5½ million, according to the Symantec, distributor and licensor, among other things, of firewall and virus protection software. Phishing, in case you’ve missed the news, is a scam which uses e-mail to spoof legitimate businesses such as banks and airlines, and attempts to entice you to enter personal data which can then be used by criminals. “Update your account” or “Your Security May Have Been Compromised and We Need You to Verify Your Password” are typical messages, often accompanied by logos and names that appear to be all too real.

Symantec also discovered 1,862 new software vulnerabilities, over the six month period—almost all moderate to high security threats and 60 percent were in Web-based applications. Symantec also found that the average number of denial-of-service attacks jumped from 119 to 927 a day during the first half of 2005. Why the increase? Personal computers are being overwhelmed with “bots”—penetrating vulnerabilities in personal computer software that allow the hackers—online criminals—to remotely control home computers. Not convinced? By monitoring customers and their networks the numbers of active bots more than doubled from 4,348 to 10,352 bot computers. The SANS Internet Storm Center, a not-for-profit organization that tracks hacking trends, detects an average of 260,000 bots each day that are out there looking for computers that are vulnerable to attack. No longer limited to “denial of service” attacks by triggering junk data to attack—and ultimately overwhelm—a legitimate website, these bots now are beginning to be used to generate SPAM and malicious code.

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

What if you offer a tutorial service that teaches how to use peer-to-peer file-sharing programs and refers members to P2P networks but doesn’t actually license file-sharing programs, and doesn’t operate a file-sharing network itself? Sounds like it would be tough to prove copyright infringement—the Grokster case notwithstanding.

But what if you advertise that by becoming a member, subscribing and paying a fee, your P2P file-sharing is legal. “PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING SUED FOR USING OUR SOFTWARE. YES! IT IS 100% LEGAL,” or “Rest assured that File-Sharing is 100% legal.” What if customers are deceived into thinking that by becoming a member, P2P file-sharing is legal? Remember, when anyone uses a P2P file-sharing program to download copyrighted material, or to make that material available to others without the copyright owner’s permission, it’s copyright infringement. Well the FTC has charged Cashier Myricks Jr., doing business as MP3downloadcity.com, with deceptive advertising by falsely claiming that membership in the service makes P2P file-sharing legal; and acting on the FTC’s action, a U.S. District Court judge has stopped the deceptive ads. The FTC is seeking to make the ban permanent.

Want to know more? The FTC has published “P2P File Sharing: Evaluating the Risks.” Oh, and you should also probably call Reed Smith…after all, we know advertising, marketing and promotion like nobody else.

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

A Tennessee employee worked for a Tennessee company in Tennessee and all was right with the world. But then the company dissolved, and the individual was hired by a client of his former company—the client is a New York company. Although he traveled to New York on business (and dutifully reported the 25 percent of his time he spent in New York), the rest of his time he earned his living from Tennessee, working by computer and telephone. The individual paid the New York taxing authority (and never disputed) the pro rata portion of his income for the time he spent in New York, but the remainder of his work was done in Tennessee and not (so he thought) subject to New York tax.

A few months ago, a divided Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the 25 percent connection to New York supported the argument that this “minimal connection” allows New York to tax everything the taxpayer earns because it is earned from a New York company! “Foul,” cries the dissent—what about the secretary working in the Boston office of a New York-based law firm? A sales manager for a New York company working in California? This was a very close decision (4–3) but the court ruled that tax was payable to New York on 100 percent of the income earned from the New York company.

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

Literally as this issue headed to press, the Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster—a decision that is likely to have monumental consequences for years to come. To summarize the basic issues, for many years peer-to-peer file-sharing networks have relied on the 1984 Sony v. Universal Studios decision (“Betamax case”) which held the distribution of a commercial product capable of substantial noninfringing use could NOT give rise to contributory liability unless the distributor had actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement and failed to act. With peer-to-peer file-sharing, the network software architecture is decentralized, making it unlikely that the provider of the file-sharing software (in this case Grokster and StreamCast) could actually know of any specific instances. Even the theories of vicarious infringement were thrown out by the lower courts because neither Grokster nor StreamCast monitored, controlled or supervised the use of the software (nor did they have an independent duty to police against infringement).

Enter the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on appeal from the 9th Circuit, which held that Grokster and StreamCast could not be liable for contributory infringement because there was no ability to prove actual knowledge and the software was capable of substantial non-infringing use. To give readers context, evidence was introduced indicating that on the FastTrack and Gnutella networks, more than 100 million copies of file-sharing software had been downloaded and billions of files are shared across those networks each month! The court noted “the probable scope of copyright infringement is staggering.”

So the Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit decision—but not for the reasons you might think. In my view, the Supreme Court did not overturn or even modify the Betamax case. Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software using a decentralized indexing system to share copyrighted songs and movies, and which is capable of substantial non-infringing use, cannot be held liable for contributory infringement absent showing the distributors had specific knowledge and made a material contribution to direct infringement. The court also confirmed that software distributors cannot be held liable for vicarious infringement without showing the ability to block direct infringement by users.

The Supreme Court went to great pains in overturning the 9th Circuit to note “this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error.” The Sony case applied to distribution of a product that had both lawful and unlawful uses and sought to impose liability because Sony knew some users might use the product unlawfully. That case held it is inequitable to impute fault and corresponding secondary liability based on the unlawful acts of others, where the product has substantial lawful utility.

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

In February, in the Circuit Court in Miller County, Arkansas, some plaintiffs—led by Lane’s Gifts, an Arkansas retailer—sued Google, Yahoo!, Time Warner, Disney, and Ask Jeeves, among other Internet companies, alleging that these companies knowingly overcharged for the advertising they sold and that they conspired with each other in doing so! The plaintiffs now want the suit certified as a class action which relates to the growing problem of “click fraud” a practice our very own litigator and legal guru Peter Raymond knows and has spoken about. Clicking ads or even automating the click-throughs—in some cases by competitors—can illegally run up the advertising charges, and analysts estimate these can increase by more than 15 percent because of such fraud.

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

On April 28, 2005, New York’s Attorney General sued Intermix Media—a major Internet marketer based in Los Angeles, claiming “spyware” and “adware” were secretly installed, which, among other things, can redirect browsers to unwanted websites, can add toolbar functions and icons, and distribute ads that pop up on your monitor. The suit alleges violation of New York State General Business Law provisions against false advertising and deceptive business practices, and also alleges trespass under New York common law. Intermix’ software would download, install and then direct advertising to computers based on user activity—often without notice and without an uninstall application—when a user visited a website, played a game or downloaded a screen saver. The Attorney General’s office claims that the lengthy licensing agreement purporting to seek permission, even when used, is misleading or inaccurate.

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

Only a few years ago, risk managers were concerned whether ‘click wrap’ or online contracts would create enforceable contracts. With laws and court cases over the years, the issue has been reasonably settled. They are. But the focus of recent cases has turned to the details—how is effective notice given online? Are there clauses or terms that require prominence to be enforceable? How can we determine if online formalities are sufficient for legal purposes? What about mandatory arbitration clauses? Are choice of law or choice of forum clauses enforceable? Are the assents necessary to waive one’s right to a jury trial or cut short the statute of limitations, the same as those prohibiting use of the website for illegal purposes? Can you bind a user browsing on the Internet to the terms of use when a website simply says “by browsing or visiting this site you must, and you agree to, comply with and be bound by our terms of use”? Do you always need the “I Agree” assent generally ascribed to contract formation. The answers are: it depends. Big surprise from a lawyer, right?

In general, common sense helps when creating online contracts (hiring a knowledgeable Reed Smith lawyer is good common sense). Ask some simple questions: (a) is your notice of terms reasonable and conspicuous, and can it be bypassed? (b) how do you know if a customer has agreed to your terms - by browsing, by clicking a link or by entering particular words of assent? (c) do the users have a choice if they don’t want to be bound by the terms - is it clear what they should do or not do? (d) are there laws that apply to your business, your industry or in jurisdictions you do business, that relate to online contracts? (e) is there a means to modify, terminate or otherwise alter the agreement—how will the customer know? and (f) keep records.

Some simple principles, but as you can appreciate, often easier to list in an outline than carry out in practice. And there are more. The cost of failure or noncompliance is high. Need to get it right? Call Reed Smith—we’ll help.

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

Last month we reported the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Grokster and Streamcast Networks were not violating copyright laws by making software that allows people to swap digital content. Just a few days ago, over the objections from the motion picture, broadcast and professional sports industries, the FCC approved technology allowing digital recording services like TiVo to transmit television programming to subscribers over the Internet, allowing programming, for example, to be viewed anywhere an Internet connection was available. Digital recording services and streaming programs remotely threatens local advertising relevance and revenue, while still allowing viewers to edit out commercials. Advertisers are you paying attention??

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

On July 20, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York imposed sanctions against UBS Warburg for destroying relevant e-mail messages during the course of litigation (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, et al., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y, July 20, 2004)). The Court ordered UBS to pay expenses and attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff, granted plaintiff’s request for further discovery, and agreed to instruct the jury that a negative inference may be drawn against UBS as a result of the missing evidence. The case provides important guidance for counsel on electronic discovery issues and record management, and the Court notes counsel is expected to take some affirmative steps: (1) “identify sources of discoverable information”; (2) “put in place a litigation hold and make that known to all relevant employees by communicating with them directly” and not only repeat these instructions “regularly” but also “monitor compliance”; (3) “call for employees to produce copies of relevant electronic evidence”; and (4) “safeguarding any archival media” the client must preserve. Given the notoriety of the case, these practices will likely become a de facto standard in evaluating electronic discovery issues and requests for sanctions. Got litigators? Call Reed Smith—we not only have knowledgeable litigators, but we also have an entire team of professionals skilled in data management, record retention, and compliance in and out of litigation. Try us, you’ll like us.

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

A Utah statute, the first in the nation, entitled “The Spyware Control Act,” was originally scheduled to take effect on May 3, but has been delayed by a legal challenge brought by a New York-based company, WhenU.com. WhenU.com filed suit in Salt Lake City on April 12, seeking a declaration that Utah’s new law violates the U.S. and Utah Constitutions. WhenU.com claims the act—which targets software downloaded onto a consumer’s computer that triggers pop-up advertisements—unfairly targets online contextual advertising services that aren’t linked to websites, but instead sells ads based on consumer browsing preferences. The Utah Attorney General agreed to delay the effective date of the Act until the hearing to allow WhenU.com to seek a preliminary injunction delaying implementation of the law. WhenU.com hopes it can persuade the court to delay enforcement until a trial can be held to test WhenU.com’s claims that the law is unconstitutional. At the hearing, WhenU.com’s lawyers argued that regulation of advertising on the Internet is a matter of interstate commerce subject to federal, not state, jurisdiction. Arguing the State’s case, lawyers noted that disrupting a consumer’s browsing and highlighting competitors goods and services is the kind of consumer protection the Utah Legislature has a right to prohibit. In protecting consumers, lawyers for the State also argued that computer users are often tricked into installing such software without adequate disclosures and then find it difficult to remove when unintended or unwanted consequences arise.

WhenU.com noted its software is only installed with consumer consent and that pop-up ads offer consumers useful free features (e.g., weather, screen savers, tool bars) in exchange for allowing software that tracks browsing habits and generates related ads on the screen. With such context-based advertising software, a consumer browsing mortgage lending websites might be offered home loan information from one or more lending institutions. Stay tuned.

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

Last month, we brought you information about outsourcing—a topic making news daily. This month, we bring you smaller news with potentially bigger implications.

In the biblical prophecy of Isaiah, the wolf lives with the lamb, the leopard lies down with the kid and a little child shall lead them. You can draw your own conclusions as to who are lions, lambs and the little child, but a few days ago, the unthinkable occurred. Sun Microsystems and Microsoft reached peace by dropping most claims, cross-claims and the vitriolic debate raging since 1997 when Sun sued Microsoft alleging violations of its Java license terms. With a trail of litigation which includes U.S. and European antitrust regulators, the announcement is nothing short of astounding. Yes, it remains to be seen whether years of mistrust will dissipate and lead to true cooperation, but this is not simply a truce between two rivals. The Wall Street Journal quotes Tony Scott, Chief Technology Officer for General Motors, as saying “What we try to do is educate them on the real pain customers go through when you have multiple incompatible standards and technologies.” Instead of customers being forced to figure out (and pay for) solutions to interoperability and compatibility problems, vendors are now being pressured to do so. Is this the beginning of a trend? Too soon to tell, but this truce is a big deal—Mr. Scott represents a customer!

And now, number 2. Perhaps we have become less concerned about providing information to “friendly sites,” but Yahoo! has introduced a “paid inclusion” product which allows advertisers to guarantee their sites will show up in searches—although payments do not change the order in which results are displayed. Not to be outdone, Google’s new “G-mail” will have context-based advertising derived from—are you ready—a scan of key words in G-mail received by subscribers, which customizes advertising based on information in the e-mail. G-mail a friend about bowling and you may see a pop-up coupon for a local bowling alley. Marketing professionals and advertisers point to the fact that G-mail is an opt-in service and consumers have shown they are willing to give up privacy to obtain greater levels of convenience.

For the record, cookies were invented to allow you to have a shopping cart and accumulate items when going web shopping. Fast-forward past cookies to
spammers, phishing, pop-ups, invisible GIFs, web bugs, intelligent bots and spyware to this latest announcement. Google can now accumulate a detailed
dossier of individual consumer preferences and the contents of e-mails. No one is suggesting Google would abuse such information or that subscribing is not
truly voluntary, but not only do we know what you did last summer, soon we may also be able to tell you what you are planning next summer.

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

According to the TowerGroup (Bank Technology News, January 2004), an estimated 15 percent of the securities industry in North America uses Instant Messaging for sharing market-related data with client. As we mentioned in our July 2003 issue, the NASD is already requiring member firms to retain records of instant messages for at least three years, and is requiring them to supervise the use of instant messaging technology by their employees. It is likely that
SEC regulations will emerge specifically on the subject this year or next year at the latest.

In the meantime, most securities dealers are choosing to be safe rather than sorry, and are attempting to apply the same rules they have for e-mails to instant messages as well—although the technology isn’t going to make that chore easy. Stay tuned.

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