Proskauer Rose

Subscribe to Proskauer Rose's Posts
Contact:Read more about Proskauer Rose

According to a new, partially-published California Court of Appeal decision, there is no cause of action for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution where a plaintiff’s myspace.com posting is republished in a newspaper.   In Moreno et al. v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., et al., F054138, slip op. (Cal. Ct. App. …

On March 10, 2009, the European Court of Human Rights held that the British Internet publication rule does not violate the right to free expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention. The case has profound implications for those bringing privacy- or disclosure-related tort claims based on materials available on the Internet – where U.K. law applies.

On February 12, 2009, the FTC issued its long-anticipated Staff Report on Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising. The revised Self-Regulatory Principles are the result of a year of study of the more than 60 comments provided by industry, advocacy organizations, academics, and individual consumers in response to the FTC’s proposed self-regulatory principles issued in late 2007.
…

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibit, among other things, the printing of expiration dates on receipts presented to credit or debit card holders.  Two recent cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Smith v. Zazzle.com…

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.
…

On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc in Quon v. Arch Wireless, previously discussed here. The dissent (1) disagrees with the panel’s conclusion that the SWAT team members had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages on the grounds that the decision undermines the standard established by the Supreme Court in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987); and (2) finds that the method used by the panel to determine whether the search was reasonable conflicts with Supreme Court precedent holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require the government to use the “least intrusive means” when conducting a “special needs” search. The dissent can be found here. Judge Wardlaw’s concurrence in the denial of rehearing en banc can be found here. We will keep you posted on this one.
…

Today is Data Privacy Day and we bring you a special post regarding E-Verify from guest contributors Lawrence Lorber, Malcolm Harkins, and James Segroves, of Proskauer’s DC office, and David Grunblatt of Proskauer’s Newark office. Enforcement of a controversial federal regulation that raised significant privacy concerns has been postponed once again as the result of a legal challenge filed by Proskauer on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and four other trade associations. See Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Napolitano, Civil Action No. AW-08-3444 (D. Md.). The regulation in question would have required most government contractors and subcontractors to participate in E-Verify, an Internet-based system that allows employers to verify that individuals are eligible to work in the United States using an employee’s Social Security Number and other personal information. Pursuant to a January 27, 2009 agreement between the parties, enforcement of the regulation has been postponed until May 21, 2009, in order to give the recently inaugurated Administration of President Barack Obama an opportunity to review the regulation. A notice to this effect is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2009.
…

On December 8, 2008, in Smith v. Zazzle.com Inc., No. 08-22371-CIV-KING, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101050 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2008) Judge James Lawrence King of the Southern District of Florida held FACTA’s credit card number truncation requirement inapplicable to receipts displayed on-screen or printed by online customers.  Judge King dismissed the case on this basis.  The order contradicts one last year in the same district, Grabein v. 1-800 Flowers Inc., No. 07–22235 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2008) (reported here), but is consistent with three other Southern District of Florida cases: Grabein v. Jupiterimages Corp., No. 07-22288 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008), Haslam v. Federated Dep’t Stores Inc., No. 07-61871 (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2008) and Edwin King v. Movietickets.com, No. 07-22119 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2008).