A federal district court in Illinois allowed claims for vicarious and direct copyright infringement to proceed against an employee of the Chicago Cubs Baseball Club for retweeting a third-party tweet containing the plaintiff’s copyrighted material. Read the opinion.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) appears to be using its ongoing review of current rules and guides to revisit its approach to driving home the message that the relationship between a social media “influencer” and the brand he or she is endorsing must be disclosed. As we have described previously, the FTC has interpreted its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Endorsement Guides”) to require that online advertisements — like all other advertising — clearly and conspicuously disclose material connections between endorsers (i.e., influencers) and the brands they promote because such connections may affect the credibility of the endorsement. And, in recent years, the FTC has — through enforcement actions, press releases, guidance, closing letters, and letters sent directly to endorsers (including prominent public figures) — made clear its belief that: (1) appropriate disclosures by influencers are essential to protecting consumers; and (2) in too many instances, such disclosures are absent from celebrity or other influencer endorsements.
Now, in connection with a request for comments on the Endorsement Guides, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra has issued a scathing statement calling on the FTC to “take bold steps to safeguard our digital economy from lies, distortions, and disinformation.” In this regard, Commissioner Chopra suggests that the FTC’s efforts to date have not been effective in “deterring misconduct in the marketplace” relating to inauthentic and fake reviews, and that, in particular, elements of the Endorsement Guides should be codified as formal rules so that violators can be liable for civil penalties and damages under the FTC Act.
Also of note is that Commissioner Chopra has asserted that the FTC should refocus its efforts on advertisers themselves, and not the influencers that promote their brands. According to the Commissioner, “when companies launder advertising by paying someone for a seemingly authentic endorsement or review, this is illegal payola,” and “companies paying for undisclosed influencer endorsements and reviews are not [being] held fully accountable for this illegal activity.” Seeking to aggressively penalize advertisers themselves would be a shift in emphasis for the FTC, as its recent efforts to combat inadequate disclosures in influencer advertising have focused on influencers. For example, the FTC recently produced a brochure detailing the responsibility of influencers “to make [required] disclosures, to be familiar with the Endorsement Guides, and to comply with laws against deceptive ads.” The FTC also brought an enforcement action against influencers, and foreshadowed that more enforcement will happen in the future.
Every day, social media users upload millions of images to their accounts; each day 350 million photos are uploaded to Facebook alone. Many social media websites make users’ information and images available to anyone with a web browser. The wealth of public information available on social media is immensely valuable, and the practice of webscraping—third parties using bots to scrape public information from websites to monetize the information—is increasingly common.
The photographs on social media sites raise thorny issues because they feature individuals’ biometric data—a type of data that is essentially immutable and highly personal. Because of the heighted privacy concerns, collecting, analyzing and selling biometric data was long considered taboo by tech companies — at least until Clearview AI launched its facial recognition software.
Clearview AI’s Facial Recognition Database
In 2016, a developer named Hoan Ton-That began creating a facial recognition algorithm. In 2017, after refining the algorithm, Ton-That, along with his business partner Richard Schwartz (former advisor to Rudy Giuliani) founded Clearview AI and began marketing its facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies. Clearview AI reportedly populates its photo database with publicly available images scraped from social media sites, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Venmo, and many others. The New York Times reported that the database has amassed more than three billion images.…
In a move likely welcomed by publishers seeking a solution to honoring “sale” opt-outs in the interest-based advertising space, the Interactive Advertising Bureau last week released the IAB California Consumer Privacy Act Compliance Framework for Publishers and Technology Companies. The IAB is the trade association for the digital media and marketing industries, and it developed the Framework to help publishers (i.e., websites) and the online advertising supply chain comply with the CCPA—and particularly with the CCPA’s right to consumer opt-outs of “sales” of personal information.
The Framework sets up a system in which a consumer opt-out has the result that the parties in the digital advertising supply chain become limited service providers to the publisher, such that there is no longer a “sale” with respect to those consumers’ personal information. A limited service provider may still serve ads on behalf of the publisher, but those ads cannot involve any “sale” of personal information under the CCPA.
IAB is accepting public comments to the Framework until Tuesday, November 5, 2019. Comments should be emailed to email@example.com. The draft Framework and draft technical specifications for the Framework can be accessed here.…
One of the most recent chapters in the ongoing EU cookies saga has come in the form of a recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Planet49 case. The CJEU ruled that:
(i) implied consent is not sufficient anymore, requiring website operators to seek active consent from users which cannot be obtained by means of pre-ticked boxes; and
(ii) any obtained consent will only be sufficiently informed if an average user can understand what cookies do and how they function.
The outcome of the case – while pivotal – does not come as a surprise considering the cookie developments in the EU over the past few years.
In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice—Europe’s highest court—dealt Google a clear win by placing a territorial limit on the “right to be forgotten” in the EU. The court’s holding in Google v. Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) clarifies that a search engine operator that is obligated to honor an individual’s request for erasure by “de-referencing” links to his or her personal data (i.e., removing links to web pages containing that personal data from search results) is only required, under the GDPR, to de-reference results on its EU domains (e.g., google.fr in France and google.it in Italy), and not on all of its domains globally.
However, in the same ruling, the Court also stated that the GDPR applies to Google’s data processing on all of its domains globally (by virtue of such processing comprising “a single act of processing”). Therefore, an EU Member State’s supervisory authority and courts are free to treat the ECJ’s EU-wide de-referencing requirement as a “floor” and go one step further, requiring search engines to implement the right to be forgotten on all of its domains worldwide, including those outside the EU.
Background – The Right to Be Forgotten
The right to be forgotten—codified at Article 17 of the GDPR—grants individuals the right to obtain erasure of their personal data without undue delay, where, for example, the data are no longer necessary for the purpose for which they were collected or processed. However, the right is not unlimited; exceptions apply if the processing is deemed necessary for the exercise of freedom of expression, compliance with a legal obligation, public interests such as public health, scientific or historic research, or the establishment or defense of legal claims.…
- Consumers have the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information. The law gives Nevada consumers the right to request that website operators refrain
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute between LinkedIn and hiQ Labs has spotlighted the thorny legal issues involved in unauthorized web scraping of data from public websites. While some may interpret the LinkedIn decision as greenlighting such activity, this would be a mistake. On close review of the decision, and in light of other decisions that have held unauthorized web scrapers liable, the conduct remains vulnerable to legal challenge.
hiQ and LinkedIn
Founded in 2012, hiQ is a data analytics company that uses automated bots to scrape information from LinkedIn’s website. hiQ targets the information that users have made public for all to see in their LinkedIn profile. hiQ pays nothing to LinkedIn for the data, which it uses, along with its own predictive algorithm, to yield “people analytics,” which it then sells to clients.
In May 2017, LinkedIn sent a cease-and-desist letter to hiQ demanding that it stop accessing and copying data from LinkedIn’s servers. LinkedIn also implemented technical measures to prevent hiQ from accessing the site, which hiQ circumvented.
Shortly thereafter, with its entire business model under threat, hiQ filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking injunctive relief and a declaration that LinkedIn had no right to prevent it from accessing public LinkedIn member profiles.…
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission made clear that child-directed parts of an otherwise general audience service will subject the operator of the service to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
Just six months after the FTC’s record-setting settlement against TikTok, the FTC announced a $170 million fine against Google and its subsidiary YouTube to settle allegations that YouTube had collected personal information from children without first obtaining parental consent, in violation of the FTC’s rule implementing COPPA. This $170 million fine—$136 million to the FTC and $34 million to the New York Attorney General, with whom the FTC brought the enforcement action—dwarfs the $5.7 million levied against TikTok earlier this year. It is by far the largest amount that the FTC has obtained in a COPPA case since Congress enacted the law in 1998. The settlement puts operators of general-audience websites on notice that they are not automatically excluded from COPPA’s coverage: they are required to comply with COPPA if particular parts of their websites or content (including content uploaded by others) are directed to children under age 13.
Advancements in technology appear to have spurred the Federal Trade Commission to initiate a review of its rule promulgated pursuant to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (the “COPPA Rule” or “Rule”) four years ahead of schedule. Last week, the FTC published a Federal Register notice seeking comments on the Rule. Although the FTC typically reviews a rule only once every 10 years and the last COPPA Rule review ended in 2013, the Commission unanimously voted 5-0 to seek comments ahead of its next scheduled review. The Commission cited the education technology sector, voice-enabled connected devices, and general audience platforms hosting third-party, child-directed content as developments warranting reexamination of the Rule at this time.
The COPPA Rule, which first went into effect in 2000, generally requires operators of online services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under the age of 13. In 2013, the FTC amended the COPPA Rule to address changes in the way children use and access the internet, including through the increased use of mobile devices and social networking. Its amendments included the expansion of the definition of “personal information” to include persistent identifiers that track online activity, geolocation information, photos, videos, and audio recordings. The new review could result in similarly significant amendments.
Questions for Public Comment
In addition to standard questions about the effectiveness of the COPPA Rule and whether it should be retained, eliminated, or modified, the FTC is seeking comment on all major provisions of the Rule, including its definitions, notice and parental consent requirements, exceptions, and security requirements.…