Articles Posted in Technology

The content of an online search result for an individual generates a profile of the individual. Such content paints a picture for potential employers and colleagues, and the information may not be ideal. Therefore, in order to protect your online reputation and your overall image, it is important to take certain steps to monitor your online content.

First, signing up for social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn allows you to control the content that a web search will produce. Personalized Facebook and LinkedIn pages show up as the first results of a Google online search. This controls the content that attaches to your online reputation.

Andy Beal, who co-authored Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, suggests that people should monitor their online reputation the same way they monitor their credit. This helps catch defamatory online postings in time to prevent a damaging reputation from solidifying. Beal suggests setting up a news feed that notifies individuals when their name is mentioned in an online posting. Google provides this option through Google Alerts, which will accomplish this for full name searches.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may be preparing to file an antitrust suit against Google for abusing its dominance as an Internet search engine to stifle competition from other search engines and arbitrarily increase advertisement costs.

The Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, which governs American antitrust law, makes direct and indirect “restraint of trade or commerce” illegal, both in interstate and foreign markets. The Clayton Antitrust Act, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, amended the Sherman Act in 1914 to include specific prohibited acts, such as price discrimination and mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce competition. The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, also limited the Sherman Act’s application to foreign trade only where “such conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on “trade or commerce” within the United States.

The FTC investigation is rooted in accusations that Google engages in “preferencing,” which means that Google engineers searches to produce results that profit its own secondary services, while limiting search access to competing services. In addition, the investigation concerns whether Google favors advertisements from its own services against competing services.

Since the Internet allows companies to conduct gambling online, albeit illegally, the legal implications of the sport have come into consideration. Federal and State level gambling laws strictly restrict and regulate gambling throughout the country. The opportunity to conduct gambling online allowed site operators to register sites offline, in districts that allowed online gambling, and begin taking bets while circumventing United States law.

However, according to the Wire Act, under 18 U.S.C. § 1084, an operator that utilizes the American telecommunication network to transmit information to place and manage wagers online is subject to prosecution, fines, and possibly imprisonment. In a 2003 civil case involving an Internet financial services company, the United States government prosecuted and settled with the company for $10 million regarding the company’s involvement in online gambling related transactions. Transmitting information in relation to wagers may be exempt from the Wire Act, under 18 U.S.C. § 1084(b), if the information is transmitted from and to a state or country that permits such betting.

The U.S. Department of Justice maintained that all gambling within America was illegal under the Wire Act. However, in a 2002 case, the Fifth Circuit held in In re Mastercard International, Inc. that Congress intended the Wire Act to apply exclusively to sport-related online wagers. In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which made it illegal to accept payments in relation to online gambling. Interestingly, this Act does not make it illegal to conduct online gambling.

The legal implications of electronic signatures have drawn public and legal attention as more parties contract over the Internet, agreeing to terms with the single click of a mouse.

In 2000 Congress passed the Electronic Signatures in Global and International Commerce Act (ESGICA), under Title 15 U.S.C. Chapter 96 (sections 7001-7031), which made electronic signatures as binding as traditional signatures. By making “e-signatures” legally equivalent to paper signatures, ESGICA introduced a new mode of conducting business – the “e-contract.” California, along with 46 other states, has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, under California Civil Code §§ 1633.11-1633.17, which governs state law surrounding electronic contracts.

An electronic contract, often called an “e-contract,” exists entirely in electronic form. Parties create and sign the agreement online, without the need to produce hard copies. For example, two parties may correspond over email to create the terms of an agreement and sign the contract after finalization.

The expansion of the Internet is leading towards an increase in suits for defamation, as more people are able to freely publish their opinions on the Internet and reach a worldwide audience.

A claim for defamation involves an untrue statement that damages a person’s reputation. Defamation in written or printed form is categorized as libel, while defamation involving oral statements is categorized as slander.

The elements required for a defamation claim come under question in light of the expansion of the Internet because the Internet gives the average consumer broad freedom to post opinions regarding, among others, people, corporations, events, and politics. Furthermore, the nature of the Internet allows worldwide exposure of a common consumer’s opinion, and such a posting may remain on the Internet almost endlessly. Furthermore, since most controversial cyber-postings are anonymous, parties wishing to pursue an Internet defamation claim face the unique obstacle of identifying the party that caused the harm.