Last month, a federal district court in the Northern District of California issued an order that may affect the policies of any company that records telephone conversations with consumers. The trouble began when plaintiff John Lofton began receiving calls from Collecto, Verizon’s third-party collections agency, on his cell phone. The calls were made in error… Continue Reading
A California District Court has dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit filed against LinkedIn on behalf of its registered users, finding the allegations too speculative to sustain a lawsuit. An earlier Complaint filed by one of the representative Plaintiffs was dismissed by the Court without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint and bring… Continue Reading
On April 11, 2012, Katharine Parker, a partner in Proskauer’s Labor & Employment Law Department, discussed privacy concerns that arise when an employer demands access to its employees’ social media accounts.
On August 25, 2011, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in a case of first impression, ruled that the state crime lab’s retention of an individual’s DNA sample beyond the limitations promised to him by the police when they took the voluntary sample state a claim for invasion of privacy, and for violation of the state’s Fair Information Practices Act (“FIPA”). The case, Amato v. District Attorney, No. 10-P-354 (Mass. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2011), is a significant win for privacy advocates and the Firm. Proskauer partner Mark Batten and former associate Sandra Badin handled the matter with assistance from the Firm’s pro bono partner, the ACLU.
The Florida Supreme Court recently held that a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy that provides coverage for an “advertising injury” covers a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The definition of “advertising injury” in the CGL policy at issue provided coverage for an “injury arising out of” the “[o]ral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” In finding that coverage existed, the court noted that the TCPA protects the privacy right to seclusion.
On December 17, 2009, a class action suit was filed against online movie rental giant, Netflix, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in Doe v. Netflix are claiming that Netflix has “perpetrated the largest voluntary privacy breach to date.”
Several Google executives, including the Company’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, will face criminal charges in Italian court stemming from Italian authorities’ two-year investigation of a video posted on Google Video showing a disabled teen being taunted by classmates. The video, posted in 2006, depicts four high school boys in a Turin classroom taunting a classmate with Down syndrome and ultimately hitting the young man over the head with a box of tissues. Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, less than twenty-four hours after receiving multiple complaints about the video. Nonetheless, Fleischer and his Google colleagues face criminal charges of defamation and failure to exercise control over personal information that carry a maximum sentence of three (3) years.
Google Inc. (“Google”) has filed a motion to dismiss a complaint by a Pittsburgh couple, Aaron and Christine Boring (“the Borings”), over Google’s alleged invasion of the Borings’ privacy through Google’s Street View service.
California High Court Hears Argument Regarding Invasion of Privacy Claims On Tuesday, December 5, the California Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Taus v. Loftus, S133805. Loftus is a psychologist and UC Irvine professor who allegedly misidentified herself for the purpose of obtaining information to dispute conclusions of a case study regarding repressed… Continue Reading