Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Viacom and Google Defeat Privacy Claims over Kids' Online Data
A federal judge in Newark dismissed multidistrict litigation against Google Inc. and Viacom Inc. in rejecting claims that the companies' online data collection violates the privacy of children under 13. Brought on behalf of children who visit three Viacom websites ' Nick.com, NickJr.com and Neopets.com ' the litigation failed to state a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) because no showing was made that the companies ever learn the children's actual identities, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of New Jersey said. And the claim under the tort of intrusion upon seclusion failed because the defendants' conduct would not be “highly offensive” to a reasonable person, Judge Chesler said in his Jan. 20 ruling. In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL 2443.
The complaint's dismissal comes after a July 2014 decision finding the pleadings deficient. The plaintiffs failed to cure those deficiencies in their latest pleadings, Judge Chesler said.
The litigation, representing six suits consolidated from around the country, concerned Viacom's practice of creating a record for each registered user of its websites for children, including gender, birth date and which videos and games users access from the site, according to court documents. Viacom also places a cookie onto the user's computer, allowing it to gather information, such as the user's IP address, device and browser settings, and Viacom shares that information with Google. Additionally, Viacom allows Google to place its own cookie on users' computers, allowing Google to track a user's Internet activity. Both Viacom and Google use the information they gather to target plaintiffs with ads, according to court documents.
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?