Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Key Privacy Law Developments
Earlier this year, President Obama addressed the nation to outline steps he will take to rein in the surveillance activities of the National Security Agency in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks. During his speech, Obama noted that “challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes.” The President's remarks were the culmination of a year in which consumer privacy issues have roared into the public narrative, and they underscore a theme that privacy lawyers had already sensed about their practice by the end of 2013: The tide is changing.
Throughout the past decade, courts have mostly been reluctant to rule in favor of consumers litigating over technology-related privacy invasions. Among the hurdles that judges have pointed to in their rulings are: 1) a lack of Article III or statutory standing; 2) failure to show damages; and more generally 3) skepticism about applying now-antiquated federal and state privacy laws to new technologies. In hindsight, these rulings were understandable given the opacity surrounding the tech industry's data mining and analytics practices.
Yet 2013 marked an inflection point, as the true scope and depth of both the government and the private sector's ability to collect and analyze consumer data has taken center stage. These revelations have also been accompanied by a perceivable trend in privacy law jurisprudence. Courts are heightening their scrutiny of companies accused of violating consumers' privacy, and are demonstrating a willingness to permit litigation to progress in ways that seemed highly unlikely only a few years ago. This holds true for lawsuits waged under federal and state privacy statutes, as well as common law claims. For this article, we've selected a handful of decisions from 2013 that are illustrative of this trend. (Note that we've excluded discussion of data breach litigation, as developments in that area warrant an entirely separate article). We conclude with our privacy law predictions for 2014.
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?