10
02
2018
Proskauer
By Jeffrey Neuburger on February 9, 2018
A California district court issued an important opinion in a dispute between a ticket sales platform and a ticket broker that employed automated bots to purchase tickets in bulk. (Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige Entertainment, Inc., No. 17-07232 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018)). For those of us who have been following the evolution of the law around the use of automation to scrape websites, this case is interesting. The decision interprets some of the major Ninth Circuit decisions of recent memory on liability for web scraping. Indeed, two weeks ago, we wrote about a case in which the Ninth Circuit interpreted certain automated downloading practices under the CFAA and CDAFA. Also, we wrote about and are awaiting the decision in the hiQ v. LinkedIn appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Also prior posts on the topic include a discussion of a noteworthy appeals court opinion that examined scraping activity under copyright law and the scope of liability under the DMCA anticircumvention provisions. These seminal decisions and the issues they raise were expressly or implicitly addressed in the instant case. While we will briefly review some of the highlights of this decision below, the case is a must-read for website operators and entities that engage in web scraping activities.
more

The content in this post was found at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2018/02/09/cfaa-unauthorized-access-web-scraping-claim-against-ticket-broker-dismissed-because-revocation-of-access-not-expressed-in-cease-and-desist-letter/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Terms of Service
5
01
2018
Plaintiff sued CNN under the Video Privacy Protection Act, alleging that CNN wrongly disclosed plaintiff’s viewing records without plaintiff’s consent. The allegation is that plaintiff used the CNN app, which records viewing history, and CNN sent this information to Bango, a third party data analytics company. CNN allegedly disclosed to Bango the viewing activity along with the MAC address (a unique string of numbers associated with plaintiff’s device). Bango then allegedly used the information to link the user’s MAC address to other information and built a profile of plaintiff that includes the name, location, phone number, email address, and payment information, combined with the viewing history that CNN disclosed.
more
The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/05/vppa-still-doesnt-protect-app-downloaders-perry-v-cnn.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Digital IP Torts, Digital Rights Management, Privacy, Terms of Service
31
12
2017
For years, craigslist has aggressively used technological and legal methods to prevent unauthorized parties from violating its terms of use by scraping, linking to or accessing user postings for their own commercial purposes. In its latest judicial victory, on April 13, 2017, craigslist obtained a $60.5 million judgment against Radpad on various claims relating to harvesting content from craigslist’s site and sending unsolicited commercial emails to craigslist users. (Craigslist, Inc. v. RadPad, Inc., No. 16-01856 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017)).
more

The content in this post was found at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/04/17/craigslist-garners-60-million-judgment-against-radpad-in-scraping-dispute/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Copyright, DMCA, Terms of Service
30
12
2017
A Green Light for Screen Scraping? Proceed With Caution…
While the law relating to screen scraping is unclear, a recent landmark decision from the Northern District of California, hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn, Corp., 2017 WL 3473663 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017), appears to limit the applicability of the CFAA as a tool against scraping. Indeed, in granting injunctive relief against LinkedIn’s blocking of hiQ’s scraping activities, the hiQ court noted that, by invoking the CFAA, “[c]ompanies could prevent competitors or consumer groups from visiting their websites to learn about their products or analyze pricing.” While the hiQ decision suggests that, at least in some circumstances, scraping of publicly available websites does not give rise to a cause of action under the CFAA, scrapers beware – the road may still have some rough patches ahead.
more

The content in this post was found at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/08/24/court-issues-injunction-barring-blocking-of-scraping-and-holds-cfaa-likely-doesnt-apply/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Terms of Service
27
12
2017
This past week, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in two noteworthy Ninth Circuit decisions that had interpreted the scope of liability under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in the context of wrongful access of company networks by employees and in instances involving unwanted data scraping from publicly available websites. (See Power Ventures, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied (Oct. 10, 2017); Nosal v. U.S., 828 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2016) (Nosal II), cert. denied (Oct. 10, 2017)). Power Ventures involved a social media aggregation service that scraped Facebook user data with the permission of the user. There, the appeals court had held that while a violation of the terms of use of a website—without more—cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA, a commercial entity that accesses a public website after permission has been explicitly revoked can be civilly liable under the CFAA. In Nosal II, the Ninth Circuit had ruled that a former employee, whose access has been revoked, and who uses a current employee’s login credentials to gain network access to his former company’s network, violated the CFAA.
With the Court declining to review, this important pair of rulings about the breadth of CFAA liability will stand.
more

The content in this post was found at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/10/13/supreme-court-denies-appeals-of-notable-data-scraping-computer-fraud-decisions-from-ninth-circuit/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Terms of Service
20
08
2016
A US federal appeals court says the maker of an online spying tool can be sued on accusations of wiretapping. The federal lawsuit was brought by a man whose e-mail and instant messages to a woman were captured by the husband of the woman. That husband used that data as a “battering ram” as part of his 2010 divorce proceedings.
It’s the second time in a week that a federal court has ruled in a wiretapping case—in favor of a person whose online communications were intercepted without consent. The other ruling was against Google. A judge ruled that a person not using Gmail who sent e-mail to another person using Gmail had not consented to Gmail’s automatic scanning of the e-mail for marketing purposes. Hence, Google could be sued (PDF) for alleged wiretapping violations.
For the moment, the two outcomes are a major victory for privacy. But the reasoning in the lawsuit against the makers of the WebWatcher spy program could have ramifications far beyond the privacy context—and it places liability on the producers of spyware tools.
more
The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/internet-tracking-software-maker-to-face-wiretapping-trial-court-rules/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Computer Fraud and Abuse Act