VPPA Still Doesn’t Protect App Downloaders–Perry v. CNN

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.



When Do Review Websites Commit Extortion?–Icon Health v. ConsumerAffairs

3 01 2018

Icon Health and Fitness manufactures exercise equipment, such as the well-known NordicTrack. ConsumerAffairs is a review website. Like many other review websites, its business model is predicated on payments from reviewed businesses. However, ConsumerAffairs’ specific practices raise some extra questions. The complaint made the following allegations:

more

Case citation: Icon Health and Fitness v. ConsumerAffairs.com, 2017 WL 2728413 (D. Utah June 23, 2017).

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/07/when-do-review-websites-commit-extortion-icon-health-v-consumeraffairs.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Courts Keep Shredding Online Contract Formation Processes–McGhee v. NAB; Applebaum v. Lyft

2 01 2018

A couple more online contract formation cases to enliven your Saturday:

McGhee v. NAB

This case involves mobile credit card processing services. The plaintiffs are merchants who think they were overcharged for card readers. The vendor invoked the arbitration clause in its terms. The vendor alleges that “when McGhee signed up for NAB’s credit card processing services, McGhee was required to accept the ‘Terms and Conditions’ by clicking on a button next to the words ‘I have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions.’” Sounds like an easy case, right?

Case citation: McGhee v. North American Bancard, 2017 WL 3118799 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2017)

Applebaum v. Lyft:

Case citation: Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc., 2017 WL 2774153 (SDNY June 26, 2017)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/07/courts-keep-shredding-online-contract-formation-processes-mcghee-v-nab-applebaum-v-lyft.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Craigslist Garners $60 Million Judgment against Radpad in Scraping Dispute

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.



Browsewrap/Clickwrap Distinction Vexes Another Court–Nevarez v. Ticketmaster

30 12 2017

We just blogged about online contract formation yesterday, but it’s worth revisiting the topic so quickly because this case demonstrates another crash-and-burn failure of the browsewrap-clickwrap dichotomy. How many times must the “wrap” categorization fail before judges recognize that it’s a complete waste of time?

The plaintiff alleges that Ticketmaster violates the ADA for admission ticket and parking sales for Levi’s Stadium. Ticketmaster seeks to send the case to arbitration. To buy tickets, purchasers needed a Ticketmaster account, which included the following screen (helpfully included in the opinion):

 

more

Case citation: Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, 2017 WL 3492110 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017)

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/browsewrapclickwrap-distinction-vexes-another-court-nevarez-v-ticketmaster.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Court Issues Injunction Barring Blocking of Scraping and Holds CFAA Likely Doesn’t Apply

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.



Supreme Court Denies Appeals of Notable Data Scraping, Computer Fraud Decisions from Ninth Circuit

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.



The rise of eSports creates a complicated relationship with IP

19 12 2017

Recently, eSports have exploded in popularity to the point that college conferences, such as the Big 10, are now fielding eSports teams. Patented technologies and partnerships in the eSports field have been developed to take advantage of this boom as well. However, there are problems with enforcing IP rights, both because the patents could be potentially held as ineligible subject matter and the ownership rights for the IP are difficult to determine.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/03/25/rise-esports-complicated-ip/id=79418/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



LinkedIn Files Opening Brief with Ninth Circuit in Closely-Watched Data Scraping Dispute with hiQ

12 10 2017

In a new development in an important scraping dispute, LinkedIn appealed the lower court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction compelling LinkedIn to disable any technical measures it had employed to block the defendant’s data scraping activities.  LinkedIn’s brief was filed on October 3, 2017.  In it, LinkedIn asserts that the relevant issue is whether the lower court “erred as matter of law by holding—contrary to the CFAA’s unambiguous text and Circuit precedent—that LinkedIn could not invoke the CFAA after LinkedIn revoked hiQ’s access to its servers by sending a particularized cease-and-desist letter and imposing technical measures to block hiQ’s data-scraping bots.”

We will be watching the developments in this case closely.

more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/10/05/linkedin-files-opening-brief-with-ninth-circuit-in-closely-watched-data-scraping-dispute-with-hiq/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Ninth Circuit Rejects Claim That Amazon’s Terms and Conditions Are an Unconscionable Contract

12 10 2017

In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that had sent a putative class action against Amazon over its pricing practices to arbitration, as per Amazon’s terms of service. (Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-56799 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017) (unpublished)).  In finding that Amazon’s “Conditions of Use” were not unconscionable and presented in a reasonable manner, this holding differs from a Second Circuit decision from last year that declined to compel arbitration because reasonable minds could disagree regarding the sufficiency of notice provided to Amazon.com customers when placing an order through the website. (On remand, a New York magistrate judge ruled that the court should grant Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration on other grounds based upon the plaintiff’s constructive knowledge of the terms.)

 

more

The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/10/05/ninth-circuit-rejects-claim-that-amazons-terms-and-conditions-are-an-unconscionable-contract/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.