In August, we wrote about the ruling of a New Jersey appellate court in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., in which the court took a very narrow view of the ability of employers to monitor the e-mail communications of employees over its computer networks. In that case, which is now on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the appellate court held that an employee did not waive her attorney-client privilege with respect to e-mails that she sent to her attorney while using the employer’s computer network, but via her personal Web mail account, despite the existence of a broadly worded communications policy giving the employer the right to access all communications occurring over its network. The appellate court court ruled that even if the employer’s policy applied to the employee (she disputed its applicability), the employer’s right to access to such communications pursuant to that policy was limited by the employer’s "legitimate business interests." Such interests did not extend, the court concluded, to the employee’s communications with her attorney.

In contrast to the New Jersey court’s narrow view of the applicability of such policies, the district court judge in Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101866 (D. Idaho Nov. 2, 2009), held that knowledge of employer monitoring of employee communications over its network could be imputed, not only to the employee but to the employee’s attorney as well. As a result, the court held, the attorney-client privilege had been waived with respect to messages sent by the employee to the attorney using her employer-assigned e-mail account, and to messages sent to the employee at her employer e-mail address by the attorney.

If the European Commission has anything to say about it, starting about 18 months from now companies will have to start obtaining consent from Web site visitors to place cookies on their computers.

Last week, the European Parliament approved amendments to Europe’s e-Privacy Directive (see page 76, item 5) requiring, among other things, that operators of Web sites obtain a user’s consent before placing a cookie on the user’s computer.  “Cookies” are digital files that are routinely placed on a user’s computer when they visit a Web site.  These files are used for many purposes, including to save a user’s name and password so they can be pre-populated in a Web site’s log-in page; to enable Web sites to engage in behavioral marketing by displaying ads that are keyed to a user’s browsing history; to enable Web sites to perform analyses of the demographics of the site’s visitors and what areas of the site are most popular; and to save the contents of a user’s online shopping cart.

In Amburgy v. Express Scripts, Inc., Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that “plaintiff’s asserted claim of ‘increased-risk-of-harm’ fails to meet the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate harm that is ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ Plaintiff has therefore failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he has standing to bring this suit.”