Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a federal law that regulates data collected from children under 13, has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. Bipartisan efforts to expand COPPA and other attempts at federal legislation to address online and data privacy for users under the age of 18 have repeatedly stalled in the past few years.
In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children. This follows a common pattern in which states filled the gaps left by an absence of federal privacy law — seen with the proliferation of state legislation on data breach notification, health, artificial intelligence and now, children under 18. Without preemptive federal legislation, these state laws create a dizzying and challenging compliance patchwork for businesses, with laws that are interpreted and enforced by regulators with varying priorities.
These new children’s “privacy” laws seek to address a spectrum of concerns including service design, potential harm, parental oversight, age verification, consent and data processing. While most of the concepts are not novel — kids under 13 have been afforded additional protections and been given limited access to certain platforms in the past — the breadth of these new laws, the covered platforms, the design mandates, and the application to teens are new. Outright bans on accessing social media platforms and potential bans related to use of apps stores without parental consent for all minors are ushering in a new era of restrictions for minors online.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?