Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Are States Taking the Lead to Enforce Digital Privacy Laws?
Recently, 37 states and the District of Columbia reached a $17 million dollar settlement with Google over its intentional circumvention of Internet users' privacy settings. The case stemmed from 'Google's bypassing of privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser to use cookies to track users and show them advertisements in 2011 and 2012.' See, 'Google to Pay $17 Million to Settle Privacy Case,' NY Times.com. This multi-state agreement followed Google's $22.5 million dollar settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over the same practice. See, 'Google Will Pay $22.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges it Misrepresented Privacy Assurances to Users of Apple's Safari Internet Browser,' FTC.com. In total, Google has paid approximately $40 million dollars to federal and state regulators for intentionally harming the personal privacy rights of Internet users in this matter.'
Google's ability to circumvent Apple's Safari browser setting was uncovered and publicized by The Wall Street Journal on Feb. 17, 2012. See, 'Google's iPhone Tracking.' According to The Wall Street Journal's investigation, Google and several other advertising 'companies used special computer code that trick[ed] Apple's Safari Web-browsing software' into letting them track the Web-browsing habits of users who tried to protect their personal privacy. Id. After the WSJ contacted Google about its alleged illegal activities, the company disabled the code. However, one has to wonder why the WSJ needed to contact Google in order for it to stop violating the personal privacy rights of Internet users?
Google's Privacy Settlements
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?