Is Google the New Cookie Monster? Third Circuit Google Case Gives Californians Something to Complain About

cookie monsterBy Samuel Daheim

On Tuesday, November 10th, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of freestanding privacy claims against Google Inc. (Google) under California law. Plaintiffs alleged that Google’s actions constituted a breach of privacy, under both California Tort law and the California State constitution, when it deceitfully bypassed internet privacy settings in order to track internet usage. The Third Circuit rejected the district court’s ruling that the alleged intrusive practices of the company did not amount to an “egregious breach of social norms” – the standard under the California constitution. Continue reading

The Continuing Fight Over Paying Student-Athletes

Untitled2By Joe Davison

College athletics, like professional sports, have become a multi-billion dollar business. As the NCAA and its conferences sign lucrative media contracts, many have started to question the lack of compensation for college student-athletes. This has resulted in an outbreak of antitrust action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). In O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, plaintiffs challenged the restrictions on student-athletes receiving compensation for the use of their names, images, and likenesses. Plaintiffs are a group of twenty current and former college student-athletes who played either Division I men’s basketball or football between 1956 and the present. They represent a certified class of all current and former student-athletes who “compete on, or competed on, an NCAA Division I . . . men’s basketball [or] . . . football team and whose images, likenesses and/or names may be, or have been, included . . . in game footage or in videogames licensed or sold by Defendants, their co-conspirators, or their licensees.” Named Plaintiff, Edward O’Bannon, was a student-athlete who played on the 1995 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), national championship team. Continue reading

Internet Pirates Need Not Fear the ITC—For Now

Untitled1By Mackenzie Olson

Imagine that you are the CEO of an entertainment company such as TimeWarner or Disney, and illegal downloading costs your company millions in lost revenue each year. How do you solve this problem? Do you change your business model? HBO is the creator of Game of Thrones, the most pirated TV show in the world. Some viewers who download the show illegally have explained that they pirate the program because they do not want to pay for a full cable subscription to watch one show. This year, HBO debuted a stand-alone streaming service that does not require a cable subscription. Currently, this may be HBO’s best option for reducing the rate of piracy of its programs in the United States; the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) does not have the authority to prosecute foreign websites that contain pirated content in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC. Continue reading

SCOTUS Dodges Privacy Issue … For Now

imrs (1)By Andrew H. Fuller

Last Monday (Nov. 9), the Supreme Court of the United States declined cert to petition Davis, Quartavius v. United States. The case focused on whether the police must obtain a warrant in order to access and review cellphone location data held by carriers. In brief, Davis was convicted of several counts of robbery based on evidence that was largely constructed from cellphone location data the state obtained from Davis’s mobile carrier, MetroPCS, without a warrant. Of particular concern to both Davis and privacy advocates was the data regarding the cell tower locations that Davis’s phone connected to at certain dates and times. The Eleventh Circuit held that Davis did not have a privacy interest in the historical cell site location data and therefore no warrant was necessary. Continue reading

“Consumer Data Breach Class Action Suits May Soon Be Standing Tall”

silver-hands-typing-blue-keyboard-digital-data-01_573x300By Beth St. Clair

A consumer uses her credit card to make a purchase at a major retailer. Six months later she’s notified that, due to a recent hack on the retailer’s computer systems, her credit card number has been stolen. She quickly checks her accounts but there’s no activity. All is quiet over the next few weeks. Nonetheless, she’s nervous. She cancels the credit card and enrolls in a $4.99/month credit monitoring service.

Based on these facts, should this consumer be able to join a class action suit against the retailer for the data breach? Continue reading