Scott J. Carpenter

Scott J. Carpenter has no picture

Scott J. Carpenter is an associate in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department of Proskauer Rose LLP’s Washington, DC office. His practice areas include privacy and data security, and securities litigation, as well as labor and employment.

Scott received his J.D., cum laude, from American University’s Washington College of Law in 2007. While in law school, Scott served as a Junior and Senior Staff Member on the American University Law Review. Scott received his B.A. from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia in 2004.

Scott is admitted to the Bar of the State of California.


Articles By This Author

Ninth Circuit: ECPA Protects Stored Communications of Foreign Citizens

Suzlon Energy Ltd. demanded Microsoft to produce emails from the Hotmail email account of Rajagopalan Sridhar, an Indian citizen imprisoned abroad. The district court held that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) prohibited Microsoft from producing the documents even though Sridhar was not a U.S. citizen. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Continue Reading...

Judge Finds Injury-in-Fact Adequately Alleged in RockYou Data Breach Action

Where others have failed, Alan Claridge did not. Recently, a Federal judge in the Northern District of California declined to dismiss Plaintiff Claridge’s claims arising from a data breach involving the social entertainment site RockYou. Arguing that the data breach harmed the value of his personal information, Plaintiff convinced the court not to dismiss his action for lack of standing.

Continue Reading...

Credit Report Resellers Settle FTC Charges Over Poor Security

The Federal Trade Commission recently announced that it reached a settlement with three consumer credit report resellers whose information security practices and procedures were not sufficient to prevent hackers to obtain more than 1,800 consumer credit reports without authorization. The settlement resolves allegations that the resellers violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the FTC Act and the Gramm Leach Bliley Safeguards Rule by failing to take appropriate precautions to protect credit reports and the personal information such reports contain. According to the FTC, the resellers’ information security deficiencies included (1) not having comprehensive information security policies or procedures in place; (2) releasing consumer reports to clients who lacked basic security measures, such as firewalls and updated antivirus software; (3) failing to protect their own internet portals and thereby furnishing credit reports to hackers who lacked a permissible purpose for having them; and (4) not making reasonable efforts to protect against future breaches even after becoming aware of the hackers’ illegitimate activities.

Continue Reading...

Federal Court Limits Warrantless Border Searches

According to a federal court in the Northern District of California, United States border agents may not search a laptop without a warrant several months after the agents seized the laptop.

Continue Reading...

Lack of Standing Argument Wins Against Supposed Data Breach Victim

Calling an alleged data breach victim’s assertion of injury-in-fact as “far too speculative,” a Pennsylvania federal district court recently dismissed a class action suit filed against Aetna, Inc. for lack of standing. In Allison v. Aetna, the court indicated that while a plaintiff in a data breach case may assert an increased risk of harm to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing, the threat of harm must be credible rather than a mere possibility of future harm.

Continue Reading...

Data Breach Class Action Fails - Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Case Against Heartland

On December 7, 2009, a federal district court sitting in New Jersey dismissed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against Heartland Payment Systems arising from a massive breach of credit and debit card information and, in doing so, reinforced the difficulties private plaintiffs face in bringing data breach lawsuits under the federal securities laws.

Continue Reading...

Third Time's A Charm: FTC Delays Enforcement Of The Red Flags Rule Again

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced today that, for the third time, it will delay enforcement of the Red Flags Rule until November 1, 2009 – a year after the original November 1, 2008 compliance deadline. In delaying enforcement yet again, the Commission stated that it intends to engage in an “expanded business education campaign” in which the staff will “redouble its efforts to educate [businesses] about compliance.” Such a campaign is designed to “clarify whether businesses are covered by the Rule and what they must do to comply.” The delay does not affect companies subject to the enforcement authority of federal agencies other than the FTC.

Continue Reading...

EPIC Petitions for a Closer Look at the Cloud - Privacy Group Asks the FTC to Investigate Google Cloud Computing for Inadequate Safeguards and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) recently filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) accusing Google of failing to implement adequate privacy and data security safeguards and engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices related to its “cloud computing” services.

Continue Reading...

Federal Court Enjoins Sale of Keylogger Program

A U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently issued a preliminary injunction ordering CyberSpy Software, LLC to stop promoting and selling “RemoteSpy,” a keylogger software program that, once installed on a computer, collects information regarding use of the computer.

Continue Reading...

FTC Suspends Enforcement of Red Flag Rules For Six Months

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently announced that it will not enforce the new Red Flag Rules until May 1, 2009, giving financial institutions and creditors an additional six months to comply by developing and implementing a written identity theft prevention program.  In an Enforcement Policy Statement released on October 22, 2008, the FTC acknowledged the uncertainty felt by many entities and some industries regarding whether they would be considered “covered entities” and thus subject to the rules. This announcement though does not affect companies subject to the enforcement authority of federal agencies other than the FTC.

Continue Reading...