Snapchat announces a seismic shift, Microsoft looks to DNA for your long-term storage needs, and authorities try to get out ahead of some of the predictable consequences of Pokémon Go’s arrival. (Please look where you’re walking as you try to catch them all.)
As a general rule, a website is not held liable for the content its users post on its platform. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunizes websites from lawsuits by not treating the website as the publisher or speaker of content posted by its users. It also allows websites to edit and remove content that could be obscene, lewd and objectionable without the website incurring liability for failure to remove other similar content. Courts have even gone as far as not holding websites liable for defamatory, offensive or infringing posts by its users even when such websites invite visitors to post potentially defamatory statements, so long as the website did not materially contribute to the actual offensive content of the post. While courts have applied this protection broadly, a recent Ninth Circuit decision declined to do so.
To the surprise of no one, Instagram is pretty popular; Samsung puts a billion dollars into the Internet of Things; the FCC’s trying to decide if radio noise is a problem; and there’s an approach to virtual reality that won’t make you want to throw up.
Last week on the official LinkedIn blog, the company’s chief information security officer, Cory Scott, reported the company had become aware of an additional set of data that has just been released consisting of e-mail and hashed password combinations of more than 100 million LinkedIn members. This recent release is related to a 2012 unauthorized access and disclosure of LinkedIn members’ passwords:
Yesterday, we became aware of an additional set of data that had just been released that claims to be email and hashed password combinations of more than 100 million LinkedIn members from that same theft in 2012. We are taking immediate steps to invalidate the passwords of the accounts impacted, and we will contact those members to reset their passwords. We have no indication that this is as a result of a new security breach. –Linkedin Official Blog, May 18, 2016
It’s no secret that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) views arbitration agreements in contracts between financial services providers and consumers rather unfavorably. This antipathy has been maintained even after a 2011 Supreme Court decision (ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion) affirming the practice. Back in October, the bureau announced its consideration of a proposed rule that would prohibit this practice in some cases, and in other cases, require companies that use arbitration clauses to report information regarding claims filed and awards issued to the CFPB. On May 5th, the CFPB released the proposed rule.
In their client alert, Arbitration Provisions Mauled by Consumer Watchdog, colleagues Christine Scheuneman, Amy Pierce and Andrew Caplan examine the rule in depth, pointing out some of its contradictions and areas in which the proposed rule may be susceptible to (the inevitable) legal challenges that will follow.
Until recently, social media has been one of the only recourses for fashion designers and labels that have had their designs knocked off. Take the Acquazurra “Wild Thing” sandal, for example. Acquazzura is a high-end shoe brand that designed and released the $785 sandal, identifiable by its “wild” fringe on the toes. Shortly after, Ivanka Trump released the “Hettie” sandal, an almost identical shoe which, priced at $145, was almost $600 less expensive.
In the Joint Commission Perspectives May 2016 edition, the Commission reversed its 2011 position prohibiting clinician texting of patient orders within accredited health care institutions, stating technological advancements now allow for secure transmission. The Joint Commission first issued its ban in 2011 by posting an often overlooked response to the frequently asked question regarding the by then ubiquitous communication tool: “[I]t is not acceptable for physicians or licensed independent practitioners to text orders for patients to the hospital or other healthcare setting. This method provides no ability to verify the identity of the person sending the text and there is no way to keep the original message as validation of what is entered into the medical record.” 
While the Commission did not have a specific policy against electronic communications, its FAQ response highlighted concerns surrounding texting’s privacy, security, reliability and record retention shortcomings. Following FAQ response’s posting, institutions accredited by the Commission were expected to comply with the texting ban on clinical orders. However, recent studies have shown that permitting the texting of orders within health systems could significantly increase hospital efficiencies and reduce the length of patient stays.
On April 29, 2016, Judge Ross issued his ruling on Ashley Madison’s motion for a protective order, prohibiting Plaintiffs from using the leaked documents, reports quoting the leaked documents, and information “stolen from Avid” in drafting their consolidated class action complaint. The result was largely policy driven, with Judge Ross stating broadly, “the Court cannot and will not allow Plaintiffs to take advantage of the work of hackers to access documents outside the context of formal discovery. To do so would taint these proceedings and, if left unremedied, potentially undermine the integrity of the judicial process.” The Court also ruled that it had inherent authority to issue a protective order with respect to documents obtained outside the course of normal discovery, and distinguished cases cited by the Plaintiffs in opposition. Rejecting Plaintiffs’ First Amendment argument, Judge Ross notes, “[j]ournalists … are in a completely different position than parties involved in private litigation. No doubt exists that the news media enjoy the freedom of ‘the press;’ however, the conduct of attorneys is informed by their ethical responsibilities as officers of the Court.” The amici briefs submitted by other Ashley Madison users made an impact on the Court as the Court found that the leaked information could not truly be considered “readily available to the public” due to the efforts of the other users to protect their privacy following the leak, as asserted in their briefs. Ultimately, Judge Ross emphasized the need to “protect the integrity of the internet and make it a safer place for business, research and casual use.”
Earlier posts on the topic:
Ashley Madison and Coming to “Terms” with Data Protection
From Ashley Madison to the Panama Papers: Is Hacked Data Fair Game?
Several companies cast an eye toward the Internet of Things, Twitter’s AI gets pretty good at live video, some industry giants get behind the driverless car, and more …
We’ve previously written about the distinctions between hacking credit and other financial data in comparison to hacking private information. (See Ashley Madison and Coming to “Terms” with Data Protection.) The issue of how much protection the latter receives when it relates to attorney-client communications is currently before the District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri in the multi-district litigation arising from the July 2015 Ashley Madison leaks. Plaintiffs—former users of the site who claim that Ashley Madison defrauded the public by creating fake female profiles to lure male users—hope to use leaked information in their consolidated complaint against the site, due to be filed June 3 of this year. The leaked information sought to be used includes references and citations to emails between Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Dating Life, and its outside counsel.
Internet & Social Media Law Blog