Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
By Aldo M. Leiva and Alexander Koskey
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated a proposed class action by Michael Salazar against a professional sports organization on Oct. 15, 2024, alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The decision clarifies key aspects of the VPPA, specifically regarding what it means to be a “subscriber of goods or services” under the act, and broadens the scope of potential VPPA claims against commercial websites. The Second Circuit’s decision is notable in that it signals a reversal of the recent trend of dismissals of VPPA claims in courts across the country and could trigger a significant increase in VPPA lawsuits. Although organizations have grappled with VPPA claims for several years, this decision is another red flag to organizations to take immediate steps and ensure compliance with privacy laws to mitigate the risks of VPPA claims.
Salazar filed a class action lawsuit against a professional sports organization alleging that it violated the VPPA by disclosing his personal viewing information to a third-party social media provider without his consent. Salazar had signed up for the organization’s free online newsletter and visited the organization’s website, where he watched videos. Salazar alleges that his video viewing history and social media ID were shared with the third party through pixel tracking software embedded in the organization’s website without his permission. The district court dismissed Salazar’s claims largely on the basis that the organization’s online newsletter was not an audiovisual “good or service” and there was no nexus between subscribing to the online newsletter and the provision of video content on the organization’s website. The rationale for the dismissal was similar to what many other courts have cited in dismissing VPPA claims in other jurisdictions.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
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.