Articles Posted in Government

Published on: | by

When a person harms another, the harmed party has the option of filing a lawsuit to seek damages. However, certain harms affect large groups of people, sometimes reaching into the thousands. In these cases, state and federal civil procedure rules provide for class action lawsuits. A class action lawsuit is brought by a group of parties who have all suffered a similar harm from a defendant’s actions. The defendants can also make up a class where several defendants contributed to the harms at issue. In 2005, in an effort to provide greater protection for harmed plaintiffs, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) revolutionizing class action procedures.

What Are the Terms of the Class Action Fairness Act?

First, CAFA dramatically expands federal jurisdiction to include a larger body of class action claims. There are two federal class action jurisdiction requirements. First, the case must be for more than $5 million. Second, at least one plaintiff must be from a different state than one defendant. There are exceptions to the second requirement. For example, if at least two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the main defendant, federal courts may not have jurisdiction. By expanding jurisdiction, CAFA changed the class action landscape. In turn, this led to several ambiguities in the case law. This also meant that attorneys skilled in traditional class action procedures had to reinvent their practices to comply with CAFA’s new requirements. The American Bar Association provides resources to demonstrate the applications of CAFA.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The European community has been making great strides to establish and protect individual privacy in the globalized cyber community. On May 13, 2014, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued a decision that European Union (“EU”) citizens had a right to ask search engines to remove search results about themselves.  The ECJ defined this as a “right to be forgotten.”  Google, which is upset about this holding, has set up a form for users to request information removal. American counterparts, and officials within Google, have expressed concern about the implications of this ruling—both for the search engine and the threat to the flow of information.  Ultimately, the ECJ has established that the right to privacy supersedes the right to information.

What Are the Terms of the 2014 Ruling?

In issuing the decision, the ECJ was enforcing a 1995 EU directive on privacy that defines and regulates search engines as data collectors. European regulators have historically been more concerned with personal privacy than the United States. Accordingly, European government agencies have taken greater steps to enforce protections. Both the EU and members states have adopted provisions to protect privacy and family life. For instance, in 2010, the European Commission declared the right to be forgotten as a foundational aspect of its Data Protection Regulation.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Early in 2012, the European Commission proposed a reformation of the European Union’s data protection rules.  The European Commission sought to strengthen online privacy rights and improve Europe’s digital economy. The European Commission pointed to expansive globalization and different levels of implementation by the EU’s 27 member states as reasons to seek uniform online privacy rights. Indeed, each member state has different standards of enforcement for the rules. This leads to expensive administrative costs in maintaining and continuing to implement the different standards. The European Commission predicated that a uniform law across the European Union would lead to savings of approximately 2.3 billion Euros a year. In addition, with a clearer set of regulations to govern data protection, the European Commission hoped to instill more confidence in consumers in online services, leading to a growth in jobs and innovations.

What Were the Terms of the 1995 Data Protection Directive?

The 1995 Data Protection Directive was adopted to regulate the processing of personal data among European Union member states. This Directive has a broad definition for “personal data,” including “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.” Also, the standards within the Directive apply only if the entity controlling personal data is established within the European Union or uses equipment located therein. The standards prohibit the processing of personal data without transparency of purpose, a legitimate purpose, and proportionality. In terms of the requirement for proportionality, a controller can process personal data only to an extent necessary to its purpose—it cannot store that data for a potential future purpose.  However, the 1995 Directive fails to take into account the implications of social networks and cloud computing on online privacy.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Gambling has been an entertaining pastime in casinos for several years. The expansion of the Internet now makes it possible to play casino games online. However, this raises the question of whether online gambling is a legal activity. While federal law criminalizes “betting or wagering” over “a wire communication,” courts have interpreted this differently than the Department of Justice.

What Laws Apply To Online Gambling?

The federal government regulates online gambling activity.  There are several laws that apply to betting and gambling over the Internet. Most importantly, the Federal Wire Act of 1961, does not allow businesses to engage in certain online betting activity in the United States. It is important to note that federal laws can only regulate online gambling activity that takes place in the United States. They do not have the authority to regulate online gambling that takes place entirely in other jurisdictions. Among other laws, Congress also enacted the Illegal Gambling Business Act of 1970, as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. This Act was meant to target large-scale illegal gambling operations that funded organized crime.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In recent years, social media networks have proven to be an outlet for individuals to share personal views and opinions with the world.  However, Twitter’s new censorship laws could dramatically change whether individuals can actually express their viewpoints over this social media site.  Early in 2012, Twitter announced that it would allow for country-specific censorship laws.  Accordingly, Twitter content would be censored based on the country the individuals are located when reading content.  This will allow Twitter to comply with local government requests to remove or block content based on that country’s laws.   So, what censorship laws apply to the material on the web?  Interestingly, the law of the jurisdiction where material on the web is read, not written, governs the content.  This is the basis of Twitter’s new censorship laws.  They aim to cater to individual countries’ internet laws.

How Will This Affect American Laws and the Freedom of Expression?

The freedom of expression allows for a broad right for individuals to voice ideas and opinions in public without the fear of retaliation from opponents or the government.  Twitter argues that this new standard does not implicate the constitutional right freedom of expression.  Under Twitter’s new system, a tweet that is erased for breaking a law in one country may still be accessible in another country where the same legal standard does not apply.  Nonetheless, commentators point to how helpful Twitter has been during international crises (e.g., civil war in Syria).  Allowing governments to censor these posts may threaten lives.  This controversial policy deals with the conflicts of domestic and international laws.  Indeed, the fear is that the differences in laws will lead to high degrees of censorship in some regions.  Unfortunately, this will result in overall digression in the freedom of expression that societies have worked hard to protect.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The expansion of social media networks has helped connect people and ideas all over the world. However, it has also raised substantial privacy concerns as more people store personal information on the web. Congress has enacted legislation in an effort to circumvent the dangers associated with online networks–for example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, and the Stored Communications Act. States have also passed their own legislation to help protect cyber activity within their jurisdiction. For example, California passed “Do Not Track” legislation in November 2013 requiring websites to disclose their tracking practices. These laws, along with several others, work to protect individuals, entities, and their related private information as they continue to operate and conduct business over the Internet. Recently, a federal court applied the Stored Communications Act and found that it is applicable to a user’s wall posts.

What Are The Provisions of the Stored Communications Act?

In 1986, Congress passed the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) which is codified under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.  The SCA aims to protect privacy interests implicated throughout electronic communications. Various court holdings have interpreted the SCA to apply to non-public electronic communications that take place over electronic communication services in an electronic storage medium. Violations of the SCA may carry potential criminal penalties, including serving time in prison. The penalties and liabilities will generally depend on the circumstances of the violation. The SCA does allow Internet service providers to share “non-content” with another person or entity. This includes log data and recipients’ email addresses. Still, this is a limited exception to the general rules and the SCA is still prohibited with sharing any information with a government entity. The government may compel Internet service providers to provide stored information. For electronically held communications, the government is required to have a probable cause and obtain a search warrant. For communications stored remotely, the government only needs a subpoena or a court order. Hence, remotely stored data enjoys a lower level of protection since it is easier to submit a subpoena rather than to obtain a search warrant.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee, and National Security Agency (“NSA”) contractor, leaked top secret documents to the public. These documents detailed the NSA’s controversial electronic surveillance practices and procedures, sparking a debate about wiretapping and privacy laws. Snowden revealed that the government employed questionable electronic surveillance programs. The controversy circles around the potential privacy violations surrounding government agency practices to monitor communications. Since then, the Obama Administration has been under pressure to address individual privacy concerns. Last month, President Obama addressed the nation and introduced proposed changes to current electronic surveillance practices.

What Are the Current Wiretapping Laws, Before President Obama’s Proposed Amendments?

Wiretapping has been possible since the invention of the telephone. The procedure gets its name from earlier methods, which required officials to physically place electrical taps on telephone lines. Wiretapping is a constitutional and legal practice. In most cases, officials must secure a warrant from a judge beforehand. However, federal intelligence agencies can apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISA”), under secret proceedings, for court approval. In some circumstances, these agencies can proceed with approval from the United States Attorney General, without court approval. In the event that the agency does need to secure a warrant before wiretapping, courts typically apply a very strict standard of review before granting approval. For instance, the judge will look to ensure there are no other less intrusive methods to gather information. In general, the courts look at wiretapping as a last resort. Alternatively, if a party who is participating in a call, records the call and produces it to a government agency, the agency does not need prior court approval. The agency is then at liberty to use the contents of the recorded phone call for its purposes.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In general, the federal government enforces privacy rights at the federal level and state governments regulate privacy standards at the state level. Depending on the area of privacy laws at issue, different government agencies have enforcement authority. For example, Office of the Attorney General, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Health and Human Services have certain enforcement authority.

What are federal privacy rights?

The federal Privacy Act of 1974 applies privacy standards for the information that federal executives and agencies can access and disclose. However, these requirements apply only to information about U.S. citizens and legal alien residents. They do not apply to illegal immigrants or corporations.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

According to changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), which went into effect on October 16, 2013, telemarketers must now obtain prior express consent before contacting a consumer’s wireless or landline telephone numbers using automated telephone dialing systems. Do you list your wireless telephone number for your contact information with credit card companies, banks, or utility providers? Do you receive unsolicited phone calls on your wireless telephone number regarding promotions or billing information? Are you concerned with protecting your identity and privacy? Are you a company that uses telemarketing calls to solicit customers and increase your business? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, the latest changes to the TCPA may affect you. Please contact us today to speak with an attorney who can explain how these new amendments will alter your telephone communication privacy settings and responsibilities.

What are the New Requirements Under the Amendments to the TCPA?

Pursuant to the provisions of the new amendments, to obtain prior express consent, telemarketers must have consent in writing. Under the federal Electronic Signatures In Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN”), digital signatures that comply with the standards of the act will count as sufficient consent in writing. Next, the consent must specifically refer to the telephone number that the consumer authorizes as a point of contact for future telemarketing calls. Additionally, the written consent must clearly state that the consumer authorizes telemarketers to use prerecorded messages and automated telephone dialing systems in future communications. Finally, if a consumer is required to provide this consent in order to purchase any goods or services, then the consent is not valid. All four factors must be satisfied in order to have valid consent under the TCPA.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Online sales markets are in a state of expansion as more consumers continue to conduct their purchases online. Indeed, the topic of an Internet sales tax has been in debate in the California Legislature for some time. And now, with the possibility that the federal government may pass the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, online sales taxes could change across the country. If you are a consumer who makes purchase online, or a business that conducts sales online, the California Internet sales tax provisions apply to you. Please contact us today to speak with an attorney who can help explain how changing tax requirements could affect your online transactions.

What Is California’s Online Sales Tax Now?

Currently, the standard tax rule in California, and across America, is that online retailers must collect sales tax from customers who are located in states where the online retailer maintains a “physical presence.” Online retailers maintain a physical presence in states where they have a warehouse, a store, a corporate office, or a sales representative. In states where online retailers do not collect an online sales tax, customers nonetheless have a duty to report and pay a sales tax on online purchases. In this case, the tax is a “use tax,” not a “sales tax.” However, these standards differ between each state and for federal taxes. The federal government has also been considering the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, which would allow businesses to collect taxes on sales in individual states, regardless of where the seller is located. However, any businesses that are not physically located in a state and make less than $1 million a year would not be required to follow this tax schedule. This law would also require states to reform their current sales tax laws to make online sales tax collection simpler. For California, this new law will not make a substantial difference because the largest online sellers, such as Amazon, already maintain a physical presence in California. Therefore, California online shoppers already pay an online sales tax for most of their online purchases.

Continue Reading ›