A federal district court in California has added to the small body of case law addressing whether it’s permissible for one party to use another party’s trademark as a hashtag. The court held that, for several reasons, the 9th Circuit’s nominative fair use analysis did not cover one company’s use of another company’s trademarks as
However, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the successor to the Article 29 Working Party, has issued a non-binding opinion that the use of cookie walls should be prohibited under new EU ePrivacy rules. The EDPB argues that cookie walls run contrary to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): “In order for consent to be freely given as required by the GDPR, access to services and functionalities must not be made conditional on the consent of a user to the processing of personal data or the processing of information related to or processed by the terminal equipment of end-users, meaning that cookie walls should be explicitly prohibited.”
The cost for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has been steadily rising, and companies subject to the law should take heed. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a record-setting $5.7 million settlement with the mobile app company Musical.ly for a myriad of COPPA violations, exceeding even the December 2018 $4.95 million COPPA settlement by the New York Attorney General. Notably, two Commissioners issued a statement accompanying the settlement, arguing that the FTC should prioritize holding executives personally responsible for their roles in deliberate violations of the law in the future.
COPPA is intended to ensure parents are informed about, and can control, the online collection of personal information (PI) from their children under age thirteen. Musical.ly (now operating as “TikTok”) is a popular social media application that allows users to create and share lip-sync videos to popular songs. The FTC cited the Shanghai-based company for numerous violations of COPPA, including failure to obtain parental consent and failure to properly delete children’s PI upon a parent’s request.
The California Attorney General continued its series of public forums regarding the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), with forums last week in Riverside (January 24, 2019) and
Los Angeles (January 25, 2019). As in the previous forums, there were a significant number of attendees, but few elected to speak publicly regarding their views on the Act. You can read our reports on the public forums held earlier this month in San Francisco and San Diego.
Lisa Kim, Deputy Attorney General for the AG’s Privacy Unit, provided opening remarks at both forums and identified the areas of the AG’s rulemaking on which speakers should focus their comments, specifically those areas of the Act that call for specific AG rules. Ms. Kim encouraged interested parties to provide written comments and proposed regulatory language during this pre-rulemaking phase. Consistent with the prior forums, she noted that the AG’s office would be listening, and not responding, to comments made in Riverside and Los Angeles.
Of note, the presentation slides made available at the forum (and available here) state that the AG anticipates publishing proposed rules in Fall 2019,and that after that there will be a period for public comment and additional public hearings.
In anticipation of preparing rules to implement the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Attorney General recently announced six public forums that he will host in January and February 2019 across California. On January 8, 2019, the AG hosted the first of these forums in San Francisco. The following provides an overview of the forum and the comments made at the forum.
Overview of the January 8, 2019, San Francisco Forum
Stacey Schesser, the Supervising Deputy Attorney General for the AG’s Privacy Unit, provided opening remarks. Ms. Schesser confirmed that the AG’s office is at the very beginning of its rulemaking process. Although the AG’s office will solicit formal comments after it prepares proposed rules, the AG is interested in receiving detailed written comments from the public with proposed language during this informal period.
These forums appear to be designed to inform the AG’s rulemaking and potentially streamline the process, by allowing public input before rules are drafted. In this regard, Ms. Schesser clarified that she and other AG representatives in attendance at the San Francisco forum were there only to listen to the public comments and would not respond to questions or engage with speakers. As a result, if the remaining forums follow a similar approach, it is unlikely that the forums will elicit meaningful intelligence regarding the AG’s anticipated approach to, or the substance of, the anticipated rulemaking.
As close observers of the implications of privacy law on companies’ data collection, usage and disclosure practices, we at Socially Aware were among the many tech-law enthusiasts anticipating the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Carpenter v. United States, in which the Court held that the government must obtain a warrant to acquire customer location information maintained by cellular service providers, at least where that information covers a period of a week or more.
Authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the 5-4 opinion immediately enshrines greater protections for certain forms of location data assembled by third parties. It also represents the Court’s growing discomfort with the so-called “third-party doctrine”—a line of cases holding that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records that he or she voluntarily discloses to a third party. In the longer run, there will likely be further litigation over whether the same logic should extend Fourth Amendment protections to other types of sensitive information in the hands of third parties as courts grapple with applying these principles in the digital age.
Anytime a cell phone uses its network, it must connect to the network through a “cell site.” Whenever cell sites make a connection, they create and record Cell Site Location Information (CSLI). Cell phones may create hundreds of data points in a normal day, and providers collect and store CSLI to spot weak coverage areas and perform other business functions.…
Continue Reading Location Information Is Protected by the 4th Amendment, SCOTUS Rules
Companies that offer services, whether online or offline, to consumers on a subscription or other automatic renewal basis should be aware that such offers are heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. A recent amendment to Section 17602 of California’s Business and Professions Code provides a good opportunity for businesses that make subscription offers to review their practices. As of July 1, 2018, the obligations under California law will expand in two ways that may require businesses to update those practices.
The first change relates to the information that businesses must provide to consumers regarding the terms of a subscription offer. The current law already requires a business to provide certain information about the renewal process—such as the amount of the recurring charges, the length of the renewal period, and the cancellation policy—both before the consumer accepts the agreement, and afterwards in an acknowledgement. The amendment provides that, as of July 1, 2018, if the offer includes any free trial or gift component, the information provided to consumers must also include a “clear and conspicuous explanation of the price that will be charged after the trial ends or the manner in which the subscription or purchasing agreement pricing will change upon conclusion of the trial.”…
Continue Reading Amended California Law Expands Requirements for Consumer Subscriptions
“My Google Home Mini was inadvertently spying on me 24/7 due to a hardware flaw,” wrote a tech blogger who purchased Google Inc.’s latest internet of things (IoT) device. Following the incident, a pact of consumer advocacy groups insisted the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recall the Google smart speaker due to privacy concerns arising when the device recorded all audio without voice command prompts.
The CPSC is charged with protecting consumers from products that pose potential hazards. Traditionally, this has meant hazards that may cause physical injury or property damage. But as internet-connected household products continue to proliferate, issues like the “always-on” Google Home Mini raise an important question: Where does cybersecurity of consumer IoT devices fit within the current legal framework governing consumer products?
The Explosion of IoT
Forecasts predict that by 2020 IoT devices will account for 24 billion of the 34 billion devices connected to the internet. According to a recent Gemalto survey, “[a] hacker controlling IoT devices is the most common concern for consumers (65%), while six in ten (60%) worry about their data being stolen.”
The rapid growth of the IoT market and continued integration into daily life raises the question of which regulatory body or bodies, if any, should be responsible for consumer safety when it comes to cybersecurity for consumer IoT devices.
The Intersection of Consumer Product Safety, Privacy and Cybersecurity
The CPSC’s jurisdiction has traditionally been limited to physical injury and property damage. It is “charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction.”…
Continue Reading Connected Devices Bring New Product Liability Challenges
After British police unsuccessfully tried to get the blogging platform WordPress.com to remove offensive and threatening posts, the deputy leader of the UK’s Labour Party vowed to urge changes that would make the country’s laws less tolerant of online abuse.
As bipartisan U.S. legislation to prevent the appearance of foreign-entity-funded political ads on social media…
With much fanfare, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to take actions relating to so-called “social media influencers” who allegedly fail to disclose material connections to the products or brands they endorse. Recurring enforcement actions and guidance—and the FTC’s ongoing promotion of its own efforts, such as through Twitter chats—make it clear that the FTC believes that its message has still not been heard by all of the players in this advertising ecosystem, including influencers themselves.
In short, any endorsements in any medium where the endorser has a material connection of any kind to the endorsed advertiser must be disclosed.
The most recent developments include an enforcement action against a company—and two of its officers—in connection with endorsements of the company made by the officers in YouTube videos and in social media. Before turning to this case, however, we provide a brief overview of how the FTC has gotten here. …
Continue Reading Brands Beware: FTC Continues Campaign on Social Media Influencer Disclosures