Laws of .com

Volume VII, Issue 3: February 12, 2009

Morningstar Accused of Online Espionage

AOL Forum Selection Clause Contrary to Public Policy

Veterans Affairs Department Settles 2006 Data Breach Theft Suits

Google Introduces Personal Location Tracking

Google Privacy Counsel Facing Criminal Charges Over Google Video

U.S. Court Urged to Permit Webcast of Trial

Morningstar Accused of Online Espionage

NewRiver Inc. uses a patented technology to allow the retrieval of updates to prospectuses filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the EDGAR website, and subsequently stores them in its electronic repository for use by brokerage houses. On average, NewRiver handles approximately 1,000 prospectus updates every night.

NewRiver has recently launched a lawsuit against a research firm, Morningstar Inc., for allegedly gaining unauthorized access to its online warehouse of updated prospectuses. NewRiver accuses Morningstar of using a “screen scraping” technology and copying thousands of documents. A representative for Morningstar denies the use of NewRiver’s technology data or information to create or market its product.

For additional information, visit:
http://lawday.ca/articles/show/morningstar_accused_of_online_espionage

Back to Headlines

AOL Forum Selection Clause Contrary to Public Policy

On January 9, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a forum selection clause found in AOL’s Member Agreement designating the “courts of Virginia” as the only forum to adjudicate disputes between AOL and its members was unenforceable against California residents, since it included only the state courts of Virginia. This ruling was made in the context of a class-action suit launched in California over AOL’s accidental release of the personal information of 650,000 of its members. AOL moved to have the action dismissed for improper venue, relying on the Virginia forum selection clause. The District Court granted AOL’s motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals found that, since class actions were not available in Virginia, the clause amounted to a forced waiver of the right to participate in a class action. The Court of Appeals held the clause to be contrary to California public policy against waiving the right to bring class actions, and ruled that the clause was unenforceable against Californians.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-suits-claims/11759959-1.html

Back to Headlines

Veterans Affairs Department Settles 2006 Data Breach Theft Suits

The United States Veterans Affairs Department (VA) has agreed to settle and pay $20 million in respect of class action lawsuits filed by veterans alleging invasions of privacy. The alleged invasions of privacy occurred when a laptop and external drive containing personal information of millions of veterans and active troops were stolen in a burglary at a VA employee’s house in 2006. The employee had stored the data on the laptop computer and external hard drive at his home without permission. The stolen equipment was later recovered and the FBI determined that information stored on the equipment was not accessed or compromised.

Under the settlement proposal, veterans who show harm from the data theft will be able to receive payment ranging from $75 to $1,500. The settlement must be approved by a judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. before it becomes final.

For additional information visit:
http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfjan09/nf012809-3.htm

Back to Headlines

Google Introduces Personal Location Tracking

Search giant Google has recently upgraded its extremely popular mapping software with a tool which allows users to track each other using their computer or mobile phone. Other companies offered similar services this past year; however, this is Google’s first foray into the market. While this type of software raises concerns regarding privacy issues, the considerable benefits, from social networking to advertising to knowing where an Alzheimer's patient is at any given time, cannot be ignored.

Google has promised not to keep track of the history of an individual’s movements, however, the potential is there and other similar services such as Where.com have made no such promise. Users of this type of service are well advised to read their terms of service to determine how data about their movements is being used.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10461859/1/google-unveils-people-tracking-software.html

Back to Headlines

Google Privacy Counsel Facing Criminal Charges Over Google Video

The proceedings against four Google executives will continue in the Criminal Court of Milan next week. The executives face charges of defamation and failure to exercise control over personal data. The charges stem from a two-year investigation by Italian authorities into footage uploaded onto Google Video that showed a disabled teen being disparaged by peers.

Under EU legislation, incorporated into Italian law in 2003, Internet service providers are not responsible for monitoring third-party content on their sites. However, they are required to remove content considered offensive if they receive a complaint.

Google received two separate requests for the removal of the video and did so within 24 hours of receiving the requests. Nonetheless, the Milan public prosecutor has decided that Google executives, by allowing the video onto its site, breached the Italian penal code. This is due to the fact that the public prosecutor deems Google to be an Internet content provider. Unlike Internet service providers, Internet content providers are responsible for third-party content posted to their sites.

For additional information, visit:
https://www.privacyassociation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1745&Itemid=228

Back to Headlines

U.S. Court Urged to Permit Webcast of Trial

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is considering whether oral arguments made during trial should be available to the public via webcast. The context for this determination is a claim of copyright infringement against a Boston University graduate student who allegedly downloaded music files from the Internet. At the trial level, the District Court Judge decided to permit the webcast. This decision is being petitioned by the plaintiff, the Recording Industry Association of America. Notably, as many as fourteen news organizations, including The Associated Press and The New York Times Co., have filed briefs with the Court of Appeals, in support of the webcasts, arguing that such access to the courtroom is in the public interest.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2009/01/30/news_groups_urge_court_to_ok_webcast_of_trial/

Back to Headlines