Posted

by

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?

Posted

by

NewsofNoteMainSeveral 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 …

Continue Reading →

Posted

by and

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.

Continue Reading →

Posted

by

Recently, the Fourth Circuit handed down one of the first appellate-level decisions involving insurance coverage for a cyber-related event. The ruling is likely to create ripples among both carriers and company insureds, as it establishes the possibility that, under a general liability policy, a carrier may still be on the hook to cover cyberattacks or data breaches that are the result of a company’s negligence (as opposed to those stemming from a criminal attack, in which the company is the victim). In their Client Alert on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, colleagues James Bobotek, Peri Mahaley and Benjamin Tievsky break down the ruling and its takeaways.

 

Posted

by

It’s apparent by now that along with an expected economic impact of billions or even trillions of dollars, the Internet of Things (IoT) also brings with it a host of security, health and policy concerns. (See our earlier post on managing the cybersecurity risks of the medical IoT for just one facet of these concerns.)

 The U.S. government has noticed, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, is now seeking comments to guide its own rulemaking on the IoT.  In a recent client alert, colleagues Aimee Ghosh, Sheila Harvey, and Glenn Reynolds break down what exactly the NTIA will be looking for in terms of feedback.

 

Posted

by

NewsofNote

Intel and Sony give us an idea of the future of virtual reality; Google goes shopping in the cloud; the FBI warns consumers about car hacking; the Internet of Thing’s language problem; and more …

Continue Reading →

Posted

by

For businesses offering services requiring a contractor’s license in multiple states, the rules governing traditional contractor advertising can be complex enough in their own right. But when you add social media to the mix? Well, then knowing where to look and what rules to follow can become even more of a challenge.

Over on the construction and real estate law blog, Gravel2Gavel, colleagues Amy Pierce and Rob James have written two posts of interest to any contractors trying to navigate the often complex intersection between advertising and social media. The first, Contractor Advertising in the Age of Social Media, explores some of the hows and whys of this increased complexity. Its companion piece, A Resource Guide for Contractor Advertising on Social Media, provides what could be an invaluable starting point for any contractor wishing to take advantage of the immense potential for customer generation and relationship building present with social media platforms … without running afoul of the ever-changing, myriad state and municipal laws, regulations and guidance that govern such advertising.

 

Posted

by

NewsofNoteMain

A virtual reality refresher course; Google and privacy concerns; Snapchat visits the dugout; WeChat has some homework for Chinese student; and more …

Continue Reading →

Posted

by

China has issued new, wide-ranging regulations on the publication of virtually any type of content over the Internet. The new rules, promulgated jointly by the PRC State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), go into effect on March 10.

Continue Reading →

Posted

by

In her post “The FCC Has Written Good Contest Rules, Now You Should, Too” over at Pillsbury’s CommLawCenter blog, Lauren Lynch Flick has written a good summary—and provided a number of useful takeaways—regarding the FCC’s new Licensee-Conducted Contested Rule. While the rule focuses on broadcaster-run contests, the importance of clear language in contest guidelines and write-ups is a valuable lesson to keep in mind, regardless the medium.