Websites

Anette B.

Pro Se’s kitchen sink approach results in a loss – Lloyd v. Facebook

The “kitchen sink approach” isn’t an uncommon complaint claim strategy when it comes to filing lawsuits against platforms. Notwithstanding decades of precedent clearly indicating that such efforts are doomed to fail, plaintiffs still give it the ole’ college try. Ironically, and while this makes more sense with pro se plaintiffs because they don’t have the same legal training and understanding of how to research case law, pro se plaintiffs aren’t the only ones who try it … no matter how many times they lose. Indeed, even some lawyers like to get paid to make losing arguments. [Insert the hands up shrug emoji here].

Plaintiff: Susan Lloyd

Defendants: Facebook, Inc.; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Mark Zuckerberg (collectively, “Defendants”)

In this instance Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania who suffers from “severe vision issues”. As such, she qualified as “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Ms. Lloyd, like approximately 266 million other Americans, uses the Facebook social media platform, which as my readers likely know, is connected to, among other things, third-party advertisements.

While the full case history isn’t recited in the Court’s short opinion, it’s worth while to point out (it appears anyway with the limited record before me at this time) that the Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to amend her complaint multiple times as the Court cites to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). According to the Court Order, the TAC alleged claims violations of:

Plaintiff alleged problems with the platform – suggesting it inaccessible to disabled individuals with no arms or problems with vision (and itemized a laundry list of issues that I won’t cite here … but suffice it to say that there was a complaint about the font size not being able to be made larger). [SIDE NOTE: For those that are unaware, website accessibility is a thing, and plaintiffs can, and will, try to hold website operators (of all types, not just big ones like Facebook) accountable if they deem there to be an accessibility issue. If you want to learn a little more, you can read information that is put out on the Beebe Law website regarding ADA Website Compliance.]

Plaintiff alleged that the advertisements on Facebook were tracking her without her permission … except that users agree to Facebook’s Terms of Service (which presumably allow for that since the court brought it up). I’m not sure at what point people will realize that if you are using something for free, you ARE the product. Indeed, there are many new privacy laws being put into place throughout various states (e.g., California, Colorado, Utah, Virginia and Connecticut) but chances are, especially with large multi-national platforms, they are on top of the rules and are ensuring their compliance. If you aren’t checking your privacy settings, or blocking tracking pixels, etc., at some point that’s going to be on you. Technology gives folks ways to opt out – if you can locate it. I realize that sometimes these things can be hard to find – but often a search on Google will land you results – or just ask any late teen early 20s person. They seem to have a solid command on stuff like this these days.

Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants allowed “over 500 people to harass and bully Plaintiff on Facebook.” The alleged allegations of threats by the other users are rather disturbing and won’t be repeated here (though you can review the case for the quotes). However, Plaintiff stated that each time that she reported the harassment she, and others, were told that it didn’t violate community standards. There is more to the story where things have allegedly escalated off-line. The situation complained about, if true, is quite unsettling … and anyone with decency would be sympathetic to Plaintiff’s concerns.

[SIDE NOTE: Not to suggest that I’m suggesting what happened, if true, wasn’t something that should be looked at and addressed for the future. I’m well aware that Facebook (along with other social media) have imperfect systems. Things that shouldn’t be blocked are blocked. for example, I’ve seen images of positive quotes and peanut butter cookies be blocked or covered from initial viewing as “sensitive”. On the other hand, I’ve also seen things that (subjectively speaking but as someone who spent nearly a decade handling content moderation escalations) should be blocked, that aren’t. Like clearly spammy or scammer accounts. We all know them when we see them yet they remain even after reporting them. I’ve been frustrated by the system myself … and know well both sides of that argument. Nevertheless, if one was to take into account the sheer volume of posts and things that come in you’d realize that it’s a modern miracle that they have any system for trying to deal with such issues at all. Content moderation at scale is incredibly difficult.]

Notwithstanding the arguments offered, the court was quick to procedurally dismiss all but the breach of contract claim because the claims were already dismissed prior (Plaintiff apparently re-plead the same causes of action). More specifically, the court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation claim because (at least under the 9th Cir.) Facebook is not a place of public accommodation under Federal Law. [SIDE NOTE: there is a pretty deep split in the circuits on this point – so this isn’t necessarily a “get out of jail free” card if one is a website operator – especially if one may be availing themselves to the jurisdiction of another circuit that wouldn’t be so favorable. Again, if you’re curious about ADA Website Compliance, check out the Beebe Law website]. Similarly, Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim failed because the act doesn’t apply to digital-only website such as Facebook. Plaintiff’s fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims failed because there wasn’t really any proof that Facebook intended to defraud Plaintiff and only the Terms of Service were talked about. So naturally, if you can’t back up the claims, it ends up being a wasted argument. Maybe not so clear for Pro Se litigants, but this should be pretty clear to lawyers (still doesn’t keep them from trying). Plaintiff’s claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress failed because they are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. Again, this is another one of those situations where decades of precedent contrary to a plaintiff’s position isn’t a deterrent from trying to advance such claims anyway. Lastly, the claims against Zuckerberg were dismissed because Plaintiff didn’t allege that he was personally involved or directed the challenged acts (i.e., he isn’t an “alter ego”).

This left the breach of contract claim. Defendants in this case argued that Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract should be dismissed because the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the claim because she cannot meet the amount in controversy. As the Court explains, “28 U.S.C. §1332 grants federal courts’ original jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states.” Indeed, they are parties are from different states, however, that requirement that the amount in controversy is to exceed $75,000 is where Plaintiff met an impossible hurdle. As discussed prior, users of Facebook all agree to Facebook’s Terms of Service. Here, Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is based on conduct of third-party users and Facebook’s Terms of Service disclaim all liability for third-party conduct. Further, the TOS also provide, “aggregate liability arising out of.. .the [TOS] will not exceed the greater of $100 or the amount Plaintiff has paid Meta in the past twelve months.” Facebook having been around the block a time or two with litigation have definitely refined their TOS over the years to make it nearly impenetrable. I mean, never say never, BUT…good luck. Lastly, the TOS precludes damages for “lost profits, revenues, information, or data, or consequential, special indirect, exemplary, punitive, or incidental damages.” Based upon all of these issues, there is no legal way that Plaintiff could meet the required amount in controversy of $75,000. The Court dismissed the final remaining claim, breach of contract, without leave to amend, although the court did add in “[t]he Court expresses no opinion on whether Plaintiff may pursue her contract claim in state court.” One might construe that as a sympathetic signal to the Plaintiff (or other future Plaintiffs)…

There are a few takeaways from this case, in my opinion:

  1. Throwing garden variety kitchen sink claims at platforms, especially ones the size of Facebook, is likely to be a waste of ink on paper on top of the time it takes to even put the ink on the paper in the first place. If you have concerns about issues with a platform, engage the services of an Internet lawyer in your area that understands all of these things.
  2. Properly drafted, and accepted, Terms of Service for your website can be a huge shield from liability. This is why copying and pasting from some random whatever site or using a “one-size-fits-all” free form from one of those “do-it-yourself” sites is acting penny wise and pound foolish. Just hire a darn Internet lawyer to help you if you’re operating a business website. It can save you money and headache in the long run – and investment into the future of your company if you will.
  3. Website Accessibility, and related claims, is a thing! You don’t hear a lot about it because the matters don’t typically make it to court. Many of these cases settle based upon demand letters for thousands of dollars and costly remediation work … so don’t think that it can’t happen to you (if you’re operating a website for your business).

Citation: Lloyd v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-10075-EMC (N.D. Cal, Feb. 7, 2023)

DISCLAIMER: This is for general information only. This is not legal advice nor should it be relied upon as such. If you have concerns regarding your own specific situation, be sure to reach out to an attorney in your jurisdiction who may be able to advise you of your rights.

Advertisement
Anette B.

GoDaddy not liable for third-party snagging prior owned domain – Rigsby v. GoDaddy Inc.

This case should present as a cautionary tale of why you want to ensure you’ve got your auto-renewals on, and you’re ensuring the renewal works, for your website domains if you plan on using them long term for any purpose. Failing to renew timely (or ensuring there is actual renewal) can have unintended frustrating consequences.

Plaintiffs-Appellants: Scott Rigsby and Scott Rigsby Foundation, Inc. (together “Rigsby”).

Defendants-Appellees: GoDaddy, Inc., GoDaddy.com, LLC, and GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC and Desert Newco, LLC (together “GoDaddy”).

Scott Rigsby is a physically challenged athlete and motivational speaker who started the Scott Rigsby Foundation. In 2007, in connection with the foundation he registered the domain name “scottrigsbyfoundation.org” with GoDaddy.com. Unfortunately, and allegedly as a result of a glitch in GoDaddy’s billing system, Rigsby failed to pay the annual renewal fee in 2018. In these instances, typically the domain will then be free to purchase by anyone and this is exactly what happened – a third-party registered the then-available domain name and turned it into a gambling information site. Naturally this is a very frustrating situation for Rigsby.

Rigsby then decided to sue GoDaddy for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (which for my non-legal industry readers is the primary federal trademark statute in the United States) and various state laws and sought declaratory and injunctive relief including return of the domain name.

This legal strategy is most curious to me because they didn’t name the third-party that actually purchased the domain and actually made use of it. For those that are unaware, “use in commerce” by the would be trademark infringer is a requirement of the Lanham Act and it seems like a pretty long leap to suggest that GoDaddy was the party in this situation that made use of subject domain.

Rigsby also faced another hurdle, that is, GoDaddy has immunity under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (“ACPA”). The ACPA limits the secondary liability of domain name registrars and registries for the act of registering a domain name. Rigsby would be hard pressed to show that GoDaddy registered, used, or trafficked in his domain name with a bad faith intent to profit. Similarly, Rigsby would also be hard pressed to show that GoDaddy’s alleged wrongful conduct surpassed mere registration activity.

Lastly, Rigsby faced a hurdle when it comes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. I’ve written about Section 230 may times in my blogs, but in general Section 230 provides immunity to websites/platforms from claims stemming from the content created by third-parties. To be sure, there are some exceptions, including intellectual property law claims. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2) there wasn’t an act done by GoDaddy that would fairly sit square within the Lanham Act such that they would have liability. So this doesn’t apply. Additionally, 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3) preempts state law claims. Put another way, with a few exceptions, a platform will also avoid liability from various state law claims. As such, Section 230 would shield GoDaddy from liability for Rigsby’s state-law claims for invasion of privacy, publicity, trade libel, libel, and violations of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. These are garden variety tort law claims that plaintiff’s will typically assert in these kinds of instances, however, plaintiffs have to be careful that they are directed at the right party … and it’s fairly rare that a platform is going to be the right party in these situations.

The District of Arizona dismissed all of the claims against GoDaddy and Rigsby then appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. While sympathetic to the plight of Rigsby, the court correctly concluded, on February 3, 2023, that Rigsby was barking up the wrong tree in terms of who they named as a defendant and appropriately dismissed the claims against GoDaddy.

To read the court’s full opinion which goes into greater detail about the facts of this case, click on the citation below.

Citation: Rigsby v. GoDaddy, Inc., Case No. 21016182 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023)

DISCLAIMER: This is for general information only. None of this is meant to be legal advice nor should it be relied upon as such.

Anette B.

Section 230 doesn’t protect against a UGC platform’s own unlawful conduct – Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Roomster Corp

This seems like a no-brainer to anyone who understands Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act but for some reason it still hasn’t stopped defendants from making the tried and failed argument that Section 230 protects a platform from their own unlawful conduct.

Plaintiffs: Federal Trade Commission, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Florida, State of Illinois, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and State of New York

Defendants: Roomster Corporation, John Shriber, indivudally and officer of Roomster, and Roman Zaks, individually and as an officer of Roomster.

Roomster (roomster.com) is an internet-based (desktop and mobile app) room and roommate finder platform that purports to be an intermediary (i.e., the middle man) between individuals who are seeking rentals, sublets, and roommates. For anyone that has been around for a minute in this industry, you might be feeling like we’ve got a little bit of a Roommates.com legal situation going on here but it’s different. Roomster, like may platforms that allows third-party content also known as User Generated Content (“UGC”) platforms, does not verify listings or ensure that the listings are real or authentic and has allegedly allowed postings to go up where the address of the listing was a U.S. Post Office. Now this might seem out of the ordinary to an every day person reading this, but I can assure you, it’s nearly impossible for any UGC platform to police every listing, especially if they are a small company and have any reasonable volume of traffic and it would become increasingly hard to try and moderate as they grow. That’s just the truth of operating a UGC platform.

Notwithstanding these fake posting issues, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have falsely represented that properties listed on the Roomster platform are real, available, and verified. [OUCH!] They further allege that Defendants have created or purchased thousands of fake positive reviews to support these representations and placed fake rental listings on the Internet to drive traffic to their platform. [DOUBLE OUCH!] If true, Roomster may be in for a ride.

The FTC has alleged that Defendants’ acts or practices violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (which in layman terms is the federal law against unfair methods of competition) and the states have alleged the various state versions of deceptive acts and practices. At this point, based on the alleged facts, it seems about right to me.

Roomster filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for Plaintiffs alleged failure to state a claim for various reasons that I won’t discuss, but you can read about in the case, but also argued that “even if Plaintiffs may bring their claims, Defendants cannot be held liable for injuries stemming from user-generated listings and reviews because … they are interactive computer service providers and so are immune from liability for inaccuracies in user-supplied content, pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230.” Where is the facepalm emoji when you need it? Frankly, that’s a “hail-mary” and total waste of an argument … because Section 230 does not immunize a defendant from liability from its own unlawful conduct. Indeed, a platform can be held liable for for offensive content on its service or system if it contributes to the development of what makes the content unlawful. This is also true where a platform has engaged in deceptive practices, or has had direct participation in a deceptive scheme. Fortunately, like many courts before it, the court in this case saw through the crap and rightfully denied the Motion to Dismiss on this (and other points).

I smell a settlement in the air, but only time will tell.

Case Citation: Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Roomster Corp., Case No. 22 Civ 7389 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023)

DISCLAIMER: This is for general information only. None of this is meant to be legal advice nor should it be relied upon as such.

Anette B.

California Assembly Bill 1678 designed to protect against age discrimination gets tagged by Ninth Circuit on First Amendment grounds: IMDb.com, Inc. v. Becerra

On June 19, 2020 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the content-based restrictions on speech contained within California’s Assembly Bill 1678 was facially unconstitutional because it “does not survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

I feel like if you live outside of glamorous places like California, New York and Florida, you may not be paying attention to laws being pushed by organizations like the Screen Actors Guild aka “SAG,” nevertheless … I try to keep my ear to the ground for cases that involve the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This case happens to raise both issues, although only the First Amendment matter is addressed here.

For those that may be unfamiliar, IBDb.com is an Internet Movie Database which provides a free public website that includes information about movies, television shows, and video games. It also contains information information on actors and crew members in the industry which may contain the subject’s age or date of birth. This is an incredibly popular site, the court opinion noting that as of January of 2017 “it ranked 54th most visited website in the world.” The information on the site is generated by users (just like you and I) but IMDb does employ a “Database Content Team tasked with reviewing the community’s additions and revisions for accuracy.”

Outside of the “free” user generated section, IMDb also introduced, back in 2002, a subscription-based service called “IMDbPro” for the industry professionals (actors/crew and recruiters) to essentially act as a LinkedIn but for Hollywood – providing space for professionals to upload resume type information, headshots, etc. and casting agents could search the database for talent.

Back in 2016 apparently SAG pushed for regulation in California (which was enacted as Assembly Bill 1687) that arguably targeted IMDb, in effort to curtail alleged age discrimination in the entertainment industry. No doubt a legitimate concern (as it is in many industries) however, often good intentions result in bad law.

AB 1687 was signed into law, codified at Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83.5 and included the following provision:

A commercial online entertainment employment service provider that enters into a contractual agreement to provide employment services to an individual for a subscription payment shall not, upon request by the subscriber, do either of the following: (1) [p]ublish or make public the subscriber’s date of birth or age information in an online profile of the subscriber [or] (2) [s]hare the subscriber’s date of birth or age information with any Internet Web sites for the purpose of publication.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83.5(b)(1)-(2)

The statute also provides, in pertinent part:

A commercial online entertainment employment service provider subject to subdivision (b) shall, within five days, remove from public view in an online profile of the subscriber the subscriber’s date of birth and age information on any companion Internet Web sites under its control upon specific request by the subscriber naming the Internet Web sites.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83.5(c)

The practical affect of these provisions is that it requires that subscribers of IMDbPro, be able to request that IMDb, and that IMDb, upon such request, remove the subscriber’s age or date of birth from the subscriber’s profile (which I would think they could do on their own to the extent they have control over such profile data) AND, more problematically, anywhere else on their website where such information exists regardless of who created that content. This is now extending to content the IMDbPro subscribers may not have control over as it may have been generated by third-party users of the site.

The Court opinion explained that “[b]efore AB 1687 took effect, IMDb filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983 in the Northern District of California to prevent its enforcement. IMDb alleged that AB 1687 violated both the First Amendment and Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as well as the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2).” While there was much back and forth between the parties, the crux of the debate, and crucial for the appeal was the debate over the language prohibiting IMDb’s ability to publish the age of information without regard to the source of the information.

When considering the statutory language restricting what could be posted the Court of Appeals concluded:

  • AB 1687 implemented content-based restriction on speech (i.e., dissemination of date of birth or age) that is subject to First Amendment scrutiny.
  • AB 1687 did not present a situation where reduced protection would apply (e.g., where the speech at issue is balanced against a social interest in order and morality).
    • IMDb’s content did not constitute Commercial Speech.
    • IMDb’s content did not facilitate illegal conduct.
    • IMDb’s content did not implicate privacy concerns.
  • AB 1687 does not survive strict scrutiny because it was not the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal and it wasn’t narrowly tailored.

In conclusion the Court articulated a position that I wholly agree with: “Unlawful age discrimination has no place in the entertainment industry, or any other industry. But not all statutory means of ending such discrimination are constitutional.”

Citation: IMDb.com, Inc. v. Becerra, Case Nos. 18-15463, 18-15469 (9th Cir. 2020)

Disclaimer: This is for general information purposes only and none of this is meant to be legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice.

Anette B.

The Ugly Side of Reputation Management: What Attorneys and Judges Need to Know

Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was no such thing as the Internet.  Information and news came from your local newspaper, television, or radio channel.  Research was done in good old fashioned books, often at your local school, university or public library.  If the content you were seeking was “old” chances are you had to go look at microfiche. For those that are young enough to have no clue what I’m talking about, watch this video. Then BOOM! Along came the internet! Well, sort of.  It was a slow work in progress, but by 1995 the internet was fully commercialized here in the U.S.  Anyone else remember that horrible dial up sound followed by the coolest thing you ever heard in your life “You’ve got mail!“?

As technology and the internet evolved so did the ease of gathering and sharing information; not only by the traditional media, but by every day users of the internet.  I’ve dedicated an entire series of blogs called Fighting Fair on the Internet just to the topic of people’s online use.  Not every person who has access to the internet publishes flattering content (hello Free Speech) nor do they necessarily post truthful content (ewww, defamation).  Of course, not all unflattering content is defamatory, so it’s not illegal to be a crap talker, but some people try to overcome it anyway.  Either way, whether the information is true or false, such content has brought about a whole new industry for people and businesses looking for relief: reputation management.

Leave it to the entrepreneurial types to see a problem and find a lucrative solution to the same.  While there are always legitimate ethical reputation management companies and lawyers out there doing business the right way (and kudos to all of them)…there are those that are, shall we say, operating through more “questionable” means.  Those that want to push the ethical envelope often come up with “proprietary” methods to help clients which are often sold as removal or internet de-listing/de-indexing techniques that may include questionable defamation cases and court orders, use of bogus DMCA take down notices, or “black hat” methods.  In this article I am only going to focus on the questionable defamation cases that result in an order for injunctive relief.

BACKGROUND: QUESTIONABLE DEFAMATION CASES AND COURT ORDERS

UCLA Professor, Eugene Volokh and Public Citizen litigation attorney, Paul Alan Levy, started shedding public light on concerns relating to questionable court orders a few years ago.  In an amicus brief, submit to the California Supreme Court in support of Yelp, Inc. in Hassell v. Bird, Volokh offered his findings to the court discussing how default proceedings are “far too vulnerable to manipulation to be trustworthy.”

As the brief says:

Injunctions aimed at removing or deindexing allegedly libelous material are a big practice area, and big business….But this process appears to be rife with fraud and with other behavior that renders it inaccurate. And this is unsurprising, precisely because many such injunctions are aimed at getting action from third parties (such as Yelp or Google) that did not appear in the original proceedings. The adversarial process usually offers some assurance of accurate fact finding, because the defendant has the opportunity and incentive to point out the plaintiff’s misstatements. But many of the injunctions in such cases are gotten through default judgments or stipulations, with no meaningful adversarial participation.

The brief further pointed to seven (7) different methods that plaintiffs were using to obtain default judgments:

(1) injunctions gotten in lawsuits brought against apparently fake defendants;

(2) injunctions gotten using fake notarizations;

(3) injunctions gotten in lawsuits brought against defendants who very likely did not author the supposedly defamatory material;

(4) injunctions that seek the deindexing of official and clearly nonlibelous government documents – with no notice to the documents’ authors – often listed in the middle of a long list of website addresses submitted to a judge as part of a default judgment;

(5) injunctions that seek the deindexing of otherwise apparently truthful mainstream articles from websites like CNN, based on defamatory comments that the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs’ agents may have posted themselves, precisely to have an excuse to deindex the article;

(6) injunctions that seek the deindexing of an entire mainstream media article based on the source’s supposedly recanting a quote, with no real determination of whether the source was lying earlier, when the article was written, or is lying now, prompted by the lawsuit;

(7) over 40 “injunctions” sent to online service providers that appear to be outright forgeries.

Well, isn’t that fun?  Months after the brief was filed in Hassell, Volokh published another article with the title “Solvera Group, accused by Texas AG of masterminding fake-defendant lawsuits, now being sued by Consumer Opinion over California lawsuits.”  What was clear from all of this is that website owners who have been victims of the scheme are likely watching and the authorities are too.  The US Attorney Generals office in the District of Rhode Island and the State of Texas both took interest in these situations…and I suppose it is possible that more will be uncovered as time goes on.

So how are these parties getting away with this stuff?  With the help of unscrupulous reputation management companies, associated defamation attorneys…and, unfortunately, trusting judges.  Some judges have taken steps to correct the problem once the issue was brought to their attention.  As for the attorneys involved, you have to wonder if they were actually “duped” as this Forbes article mentions or do they know what they are doing?  Either way, it’s not a good situation.  This isn’t to necessarily say that every attorney that is questioned about this stuff is necessarily guilty of perpetrating a fraud upon the court or anything like that.  However, it should serve as a cautionary warning that this stuff is real, these schemes are real, clients can be really convincing, and if one isn’t careful and fails to conduct appropriate and precautionary due diligence on a client and/or the documents provided to you by a client…it could easily be a slippery slope into Padora’s box.   After all, no one wants to be investigated by their state bar association (or worse) for being involved with this kind of mess.

Yes, there have been lots of great articles and discussion shedding light on the subject but the question then becomes, how do you tell the difference between a legitimate situation and a questionable situation?  The answer: recognize red flags and question everything.

RED FLAGS THAT SHOULD CAUSE YOU PAUSE

In December of 2016 I had the pleasure of traveling to Miami, FL for the Internet Lawyer Leadership Summit conference to present, for CLE, on multiple topics including this subject.  At that time I provided the group with some “red flags” based upon information I had then.  Since that time I have gained an even greater knowledge base on this subject simply by paying attention to industry issues and reading, a lot.  I have now compiled the following list of cautionary flags with some general examples, and practical advice that, at minimum, should have you asking a few more questions:

RED FLAGS FOR ATTORNEYS

  • If the entity or person feeding you the “lead” is in the reputation management industry.  You want to do some due diligence.  You could be dealing with a total above board individual or entity , and the lead may be 100% legit, BUT the industry seems to consist of multiple “companies” that often lead back to the same individual(s) and just because they are well known doesn’t necessarily mean they are operating above board.  Do your homework before you agree to be funneled any leads.
  • If the client is asking you to make some unusual adjustments to your fee agreement.  Your fee agreement is likely pretty static.  If the client is requesting some unusual adjustments to your agreement that make you feel uncomfortable, you might want to decline representation.
  • If the client already has “all of the documents” and you don’t actually deal with the defendant. We all want to trust our clients, but as some counsel already experienced, just accepting what your client tells you and/or provides you as gospel without a second thought can land you in hot water.  Consider asking to meet the defendant in person or have them appear before a person licensed to give an oath and check identification, such as a notary public of YOUR choosing to ensure the defendant is real and that the testimony that they are giving in the declaration or affidavit is real.  You want to make sure everything adds up and communication by telephone or email may not protect you enough.  When it comes to documents provided by the client, or the alleged post author, watch for the following:
    • Ensure that the address listed on any affidavit or other document isn’t completely bogus.  Run a search on Google – is it even a real address?  For all you know you could be getting an address to the local train track.
    • Ensure that any notary stamp on an affidavit is inconsistent with where the affiant purports to live. It will rarely make sense for an affiant list their address as, for example, Plains, New York but the notary stamp suggests the notary is based out of Sacramento, California. It will make even less sense if the affiant supposedly lives out of country, but is being notarized by a notary in the states.
    • Ensure that the notary is actually a real notary.  You can typically find record of notaries with the Secretary of State that the notary is in.  Make sure they are a real person.  If you really want to be sure that they actually signed your document, and that it wasn’t “lifted” from elsewhere (yay technology) check in with the notary and/or see if their records are on file somewhere publicly that you can check.
  • If the entity alleged to be the plaintiff isn’t actually a real entity in the state that they are purporting in the complaint to be from.  If the plaintiff is supposed to be ABC Ventures, LLC out of San Diego, California, there should be a record of ABC Ventures, LLC actually listed, and active, on the California Corporation Commission website.  The people that you are talking to also should, in theory, be the members/managers of such entity too.  For example, if you are always talking to a “secretary” you might want to insist on a more direct contact.
  • If the person or entity listed to be the plaintiff isn’t actually listed in the subject URL in the complaint.  If a plaintiff is going to bring a case, they should at least have standing to do so.  You should be cautious of any plaintiffs that aren’t actually at issue or fails to have a valid direct connection that would give them standing to bring the claim.
  • If the subject post doesn’t contain any defamatory statements in the first place.  Just because a post isn’t flattering doesn’t mean that it is actually defamatory.  Similarly, public documents aren’t typically seen as defamatory either. Who is saying it is false? Why is the statement false? What evidence supports the allegation that it is false?  
  • If the subject posting is outside of the statute of limitations for bringing claims in the state in which you intend on filing.  Now I know that some may disagree with me, and there may be bar opinions in different states that suggest otherwise, however, if you are presented with a post that is outside of the statute of limitations to bring a claim for defamation, subject to the single publication rule, and there is no real reason for tolling (like it was held in a secret document not generally public – which pretty much excludes the items on the internet) that may be of concern to you.  I wrote before on why statute of limitations is important, especially if you are the type to follow ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1.  Even here in Arizona the bar has raised in disciplinary proceedings, in connection with other infractions, concerns about bringing claims outside of the statute of limitations, citing a violation of ER 8.4(d).  See generally, In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62 (Ariz. 2013).
  • If a case was filed in a wholly separate state from the Plaintiff and Defendant and you are asked to be “local counsel” to marshal documents to court or simply to submit it to a search engine like Google.  It is not improbable that local counsel will be called to assist with basic filings or to submit an order to Google.  It may be possible that such documents contain questionable materials.  It’s always a good idea to review the materials and give it a heightened level of scrutiny before just marshaling them off to the court or search engine.  This is especially true if the Plaintiff is no longer associated with prior counsel and is just looking for a different lawyer to help with this “one thing” as if a submission from an attorney bears more weight that anyone else submitting it.
  • If the plaintiff claims to already know who the author of a subject alleged defamatory post is, yet the post itself is anonymous.  Yes, it is possible that based on an author’s content, and how much detail is placed in such post, that one might be able to figure out who the author is. However, in my experience, many authors tend to write just vague enough to keep themselves anonymous.  If that is the case, without a subpoena to the content host, how does one actually know who the author is?  Some states like Arizona have specific notice requirements for subpoenas that are seeing identifying user information which require notice being posted in the same manner, through the same medium, in which the subject posting was made.  If a notice isn’t present on the website, there likely wasn’t a subpoena (assuming the website requires strict compliance with the law). Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712, 217 Ariz. 103 (Ariz. App., 2007).
  • If the case was settled in RECORD TIME.  Often these matters are being “resolved” within a few weeks to only a couple months.  As most of us know, the wheels of justice are SLOW.
  • If the case is settled without any answers or discovery being done.  This goes to my prior point about knowing who the real author is, or, for that matter, that the allegations in a subject post are even false.
  • If notice about the case was not personally served by a process server.  Many states allow certified mailing for service.  Do you really know who is signing that little green form and accepting service?  Was some random person paid to sign that?

RED FLAGS FOR JUDGES (Consider all of the above generally plus the following)

  • If a Complaint is filed and shortly thereafter a stipulated judgment is presented requesting injunctive relief without the defendant ever actually making an appearance.  This seems to be one of the more popular tactics.  A way to curb this kind of abuse would be to hold a hearing where all parties must appear, in person (especially the named defendant signing the stipulation) before the court before any such injunctive order is signed and entered.
  • If an attorney files an affidavit of making a good faith attempt in order to locate the defendant but discovery was never conducted upon the hosting website.  Many sites will respond to discovery so long as their state laws for obtaining such information (like Arizona’s Mobilisa case) is followed.  Arguably, it is disingenuous for an attorney to say they have tried when they really haven’t.  Chances are, the real author may not even know about the case and entering a default judgment under such circumstances deprives them of the opportunity to appear and defend against the matter.
  •  If you order the parties to appear and then suddenly the case gets dismissed.  It thwarts the scheme when the court requests the parties to appear.  If this happens, in a defamation related case, it could be seen as a red flag.  The plaintiff may very well try to dismiss the action and simply refile under a different plaintiff and defendant name but for the same URL that was originally filed in the prior dismissed action.
  • If the order for injunctive relief contains URLs that were not originally part of the Complaint.  Sneaky plaintiffs and their counsel may attempt to include other postings, from the same or different websites, that are not really at issue and/or that were arguably written by other individuals.  Make sure that the URLs listed on the order are all the same as what is listed on the complaint.
  • If the complaint contains a host of posts, with wide range of dates, and the syntax of the posts are different yet the plaintiff claims that it was written by the same person.  In my experience, very rarely (though it does happen) will one person go on a binge and write a bunch of different posts about one person or entity.  There are typically more than one author involved so if any statement to the alternative should raise a red flag.

Some journalists that have been tracking these kinds of matters think that these schemes may be nearing an end.  I would like to think so, however, in my opinion these problems are far from over unless unsuspecting attorneys, judges, and even websites and search engines get a little more cautious about how they process these court orders for content removal, especially if they are older orders.  I have already discussed why I thought search engine de-indexing isn’t necessarily a viable reputation management solution and in part that is because, arguably, at least for now, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act  bars injunctive relief, i.e., there is no obligation for websites to remove content anyway.  If a platform or search engine decides to remove content or otherwise de-index content, at least here in the U.S., they are doing so based upon their own company policy…not some legal duty.

In a perfect world none of these issues would exist. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in and the best we can do is be vigilant. Hopefully, through this article, I have provided some food for thought for attorneys and judges alike. You never know when such a situation will arise.

All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon.  All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
Anette B.

“Internet Law” explained

For some reason, every time one says “lawyer” people tend to think of criminal law, family law or personal injury law.  Perhaps because those are very common.  Most people even understand the concept of a corporate or business lawyer, someone who handles trust and estates, or even one that handles intellectual property.  However, when we say “Internet Law” many people get the most confused look on their face and say: “What the heck is that?” If that is you, you’re in good company.  And, to be fair, the Internet really hasn’t been around all that long.

If you were to read the “IT law” page on Wikipedia you’d see a section related to “Internet Law” but even that page falls a little short on a solid explanation – mostly because the law that surrounds the Internet is incredibly vast and is always evolving.

When we refer to “Internet Law” we are really talking about how varying legal principles and surrounding legislation influence and govern the internet, and it’s use.  For example, “Internet Law” can incorporate many different areas of law such as privacy law, contract law and intellectual property law…all which were developed before the internet was even a thing.  You also have to think how the Internet is global and how laws and application of those laws can vary by jurisdiction.

Internet Law can include the following:

  • Laws relating to website design
  • Laws relating to online speech and censorship of the same
  • Laws relating to how trademarks are used online
  • Laws relating to what rights a copyright holder may have when their images or other content is placed and used online
  • Laws relating to Internet Service Providers and what liabilities they may have based upon data they process or store or what their users do on their platforms
  • Laws relating to resolving conflicts over domain names
  • Laws relating to advertisements on websites, through apps, and through email
  • Laws relating to how goods and services are sold online

As you can see just from the few examples listed above, a lot goes into “Internet Law” and many Internet Law attorneys will pick only a few of these areas to focus on because it can be a challenge just to keep up.  Indeed, unlike other areas of law, “Internet Law” is not static and is always evolving.

Do you think you have an Internet Law related question? If you are in the state of Arizona and are looking for that solid “friend in the lawyering business” consider Beebe Law, PLLC!  We truly enjoy helping our  business and individual clients and strive to meet and exceed their goals!  Contact us today.

All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon.  All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

 

 

 

 

Anette B.

Section 230 is alive and well in California (for now) | Hassell v. Bird

Last week, on July 2, 2018 the Supreme Court of California overturned rulings that arguably threatened the ability for online platform users to share their thoughts and opinions freely by ruling in favor of Yelp in the hotly contested and widely watched Hassell v. Bird case.

For those that aren’t familiar with the underlying facts, I offer the following quick background:

In 2014 a dispute arose between California attorney, Dawn Hassell and her former client, Ava Bird when Bird posted a negative review of Hassell on the popular business review site, Yelp.  Hassell claimed that the content of the post was, among other things, defamatory and commenced an action against Bird for the same in the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-13-530525. Bird failed to appear, and the Court entered a default order in favor of Hassell.  There is question as to whether Bird was actually served.  In addition, the court ordered Yelp, a non-party to the case who did not receive notice of the hearing, to remove reviews purportedly associated with Bird without explanation and enjoined Yelp from publishing any reviews from the suspected Bird accounts in the future.  Yelp challenged this order, but the court upheld its ruling.

Hoping for relief, Yelp appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, Case No. A143233. Unfortunately for Yelp, the Appellate Court offered no relief and held that: Yelp was not aggrieved by the judgment; the default judgment which including language requesting non-party Yelp to remove the reviews from the website was proper; that Yelp had no constitutional right to notice and hearing on the trial court’s order to remove the reviews from the website; that the order to remove the reviews from Yelp and to prohibit publication of future reviews was not an improper or overly broad prior restraint; and that the Communications Decency Act (“CDA” or “Section 230”) did not bar the trial court’s order to remove the reviews.

The Appellate Court’s ruling was clearly contrary to precedent in California and elsewhere around the country. Yelp appealed the matter to the California Supreme Court, Case No. S235968, to “protect its First Amendment right as a publisher, due process right to a hearing in connection with any order that targets speech on Yelp’s website, and to preserve the integrity of the CDA” according to the blog post written by Aaron Schur, Yelp’s Deputy General Counsel. While Yelp led the charge, they were not left to fight alone.

The internet rallied in support of Yelp.  Dozens of search engines, platforms, non-profit organizations and individuals who value the free sharing of information and ideas contributed amicus letters and amicus briefs (I co-authored an amicus brief for this case) in support of Yelp, including assistance from those like UCLA Law Professor and Washington Post contributor Eugene Volokh and Public Citizen Litigator, Paul Alan Levy, whose work spotlighted the ease in which bogus court orders and default judgments are obtained for the sole purpose of getting search engines like Google to de-index content.  In case you are wondering, bogus court orders and false DMCA schemes are indeed a real problem that many online publishers face.

On April 3, 2018 the California Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case. On July 2, 2018 the Supreme Court released its 102 page opinion in a 3-1-3 decision (three on a plurality opinion, one swing concurring, and three dissenting via two opinions) holding that Hassell’s failure to name Yelp as a defendant, an end run-around tactic, did not preclude the application of CDA immunity.  The court clearly stated “we must decide whether plaintiffs’ litigation strategy allows them to accomplish indirectly what Congress has clearly forbidden them to achieve directly.  We believe the answer is no.” Based upon this win for the Internet, at least for now, online publishers in California (or those who have had this case thrown at them in demand letters or pleadings since the original trial and appellate court rulings) can breathe a sigh of relief that they cannot be forced to remove third-party content.

Aaron Shur made an important statement in concluding the Yelp blog post “…litigation is never a good substitute for customer service and responsiveness, and had the law firm avoided the courtroom and moved on, it would have saved time and money, and been able to focus more on the cases that truly matter the most – those of its clients.”  It’s important in both our professional and personal life to not get stuck staring at one tree when there is a whole forest of beauty around us.

While this is indeed a win, and returns the law back to status quo in California, it does raise some concern for some that certain comments in the opinion are signaling Congress to modify Section 230, again (referring to the recent enactment of FOSTA).  Santa Clara Law Professor, Eric Goldman broke down the Court’s lengthy opinion (a good read if you don’t want to spend the time to review the full opinion) while pointing out that “fractured opinions raise some doubts about the true holding of [the] case.”  The big question is where will things go from here?  Indeed, only time will tell.

Citation: Hassell v. Bird, 2018 WL 3213933 (Cal. Sup. Ct. July 2, 2018)

Anette B.

Data Privacy: Do most people even deserve it?

Repeat after me: Everything connected online is hackable.  Nothing online is really ever totally private. Most everything about my online activity is likely being aggregated and sold.  This is especially true if the website is free for me to use. 

Okay, before we get going, realize that this article is not discussing things that we would like to think is relatively safe and secure…like banking and health records.  Even then, please repeat the statements above because even for those situations it still holds true.  What I’m going to talk about is the more run of the mill websites and platforms that everyone uses.

The truth of the matter is, most people never read a website’s terms of service or privacy policy and readily click the “I agree” or “I accept” button without knowing if they have just agreed to give away their first born or shave their cat.  Or, to be more realistic, that a free to use website which you don’t have to spend a penny to use is likely to track your behavior so they can render you ads of products and services that you might be interested in and/or sell aggregated data and/or your email address to marketers or other businesses that might be interested in you as a customer or to learn more about consumer habits in general.  Hello people…NOTHING IS FREE!  Indeed, most humans are lazy as sh*t when it comes to all of that reading and so forth because really, who in the hell wants to read all that?  Hey, I’m guilty of it myself,  although since I write terms of service and privacy policies as a way to make a living sometimes I will read them for pure entertainment.  Don’t judge me…I’m a nerd like that.

We are quick to use, click or sign up on a website without knowing what it is that we are actually agreeing to or signing up for…because we want entertainment and/or convenience…and we want it NOW.  Talk about an instant gratification society right? Think about the following situations as an example: Go to the grocery store and buy ingredients then take another 35-40 minutes to make dinner or simply use an app to order pizza? Send someone a handwritten letter through the mail (snail mail) or shoot them an email? Sit down and write checks or schedule everything through bill-pay? Pick up a landline phone (they do still exist) and call someone or send them a text from your mobile device?  Go to the local box office and purchase tickets to your favorite concert or buy them online? Stand in line at the theater for tickets or pre-pay on an app ahead of time and walk right in using a scan code through that app? Remember and type in your password all the time or ask your computer or use your thumb print to remember it all?  Take pictures with a camera that has film, get it developed and send those images to family and friends or take pictures with your phone and instantly upload them to a social media platform like Facebook to share with those same people, for free? By now you should be getting my point…and that is that we want convenience, and technology has been great at providing that, but for that convenience we often forget the price that is associated with it, including a loss of data privacy and security.

Low and behold, and not surprisingly (to me anyway), something like the Facebook – Cambridge Analytica situation happens and Every. Damn. Person. Loses. Their. Mind!  Why? Well, because mainstream media makes it into a bigger story than it is…and suddenly everyone is “conveniently” all concerned about their “data privacy.”  So let me get this straight: You sign up for a FREE TO USE platform, literally spend most of your free time on said platform pretty much posting everything about yourself including who your relatives are, what you like and don’t like, the last meal you ate, your dirty laundry with a significant other, spend time trolling and getting into disputes on bullsh*t political post (that are often public posts where anyone can see them), check in at every place you possibly go, upload pictures of yourself and your family…all of this willingly (no one is holding a gun to your head) and you are surprised that they sell or otherwise use that data?  How do you think they are able to offer you all these cool options and services exactly? How do you think they are able to keep their platform up and running and FREE for you to use?  At what point does one have to accept responsibility for the repercussions from using a website, signing up or clicking that “I agree” button?  Damn near ever website has a terms of service and privacy policy (if they don’t steer clear of them or send them my way for some help) and you SHOULD be reading it and understand it…or at least don’t b*tch when you end up getting advertisements as per the terms of service and privacy policy (that you didn’t bother to read)…or any other possible option that could be out there where someone might use your information for – including the possibility that it will be used for nefarious purposes.

I’m not saying that general websites/platforms that house such content shouldn’t have reasonable security measures in place and that terms of service and privacy policies shouldn’t be clear (though its getting harder and harder to write for the least common denominator).  But again, nothing is 100% secure – there will always be someone that will find away to hack a system if they really want to and it’s really your fault if you fail to read and understand a website or platforms terms of service and privacy policy before you use it or sign up for something.  Why should people scream and cry for the “head” of a platform or website when people freely give their data away?  That’s like blaming the car dealership for theft when you take your fancy new car to a ghetto ass neighborhood, known for high crime and car theft, leave it parked on a dark street, unlocked and with the keys in it.  “But they should have watned me it would get stolen!” Wait! What?Okay, maybe that’s a little too far of an exaggeration but seriously, the internet is a blessing and a curse.  If you don’t know of the potential dangers, and you don’t take the time to learn them, perhaps you shouldn’t be on it?  Remember, entertainment and convenience is the reward for our sacrifice of data privacy and security.

You know who has a heightened level of privacy, doesn’t have social media accounts hacked, data isn’t mined from online habits and doesn’t get spammed to death?  My dad.  Why? He doesn’t get on computers let alone get online and he doesn’t even own a smart phone.  True story.  The dude still has checks, writes hand written notes, and hunts for his meat and gardens for his vegetables. Can you say “off the grid”?  Want heightened data privacy?  Be like dad.

Repeat after me: Everything connected online is hackable.  Nothing online is really ever totally private. Most everything about my online activity is likely being aggregated and sold and sold.  This is especially true if the website is free for me to use.

All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon.  All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. 

 

 

Anette B.

Schools and Sunscreen to License Plate Covers: 10 new Arizona laws that may impact you – effective this week.

Often times, when laws are passed, they are done without most people noticing.  That’s because small changes to state statutes aren’t all that “news worthy” and it seems that the only people that care are those that wrote them.  However, starting Wednesday, August 9th, 2017, there are 10 laws that Arizonans might actually find relevant, or at least interesting:

  1. Sunscreen in School: Remember the frustration with trying to get your kid to be able to use sunscreen at school, camp or daycare without a prescription?  Stress no more!  HB 2134 fixed that by allowing school aged kids to have and use sunscreen without a note or prescription!
  2. Schools and Inhalers: I can recall growing up with asthma and recess could be troublesome without an inhaler.  Fortunately, that probably won’t be an issue anymore. HB 2208 grants trained school personnel the authority to administer a rescue inhaler to a student (or adult) provided that such student or adult is showing signs of respiratory distress during school or a school sponsored event.  It also allows schools to apply for grants and accept donations to buy inhalers and spacers.
  3. Hot Cars are No Place for Pets and Kids: We’ve seen more than our share of news stories about kids and pets being left in hot cars and dying as a result.  Passers by have long been concerned about civil liability for breaking into locked and unattended vehicles in order to rescue the pets or kids. After all, no good deed goes unpunished, right? Well, worry no more! HB2494 remedied that by protecting persons who enters a locked, unattended, vehicle in connection with the rescue of a child or pet if that person believes that the kid or pet is in “imminent danger of physical injury or death.”  The caveat is that the person MUST call the police or animal control first and stay with that animal or child under they police or animal control arrive.
  4. Background Checks for Private Gun Sales: There has been a lot of confusion surrounding whether or not one had to do a background check on someone when there was a private sale or gift of a gun. Confusion be gone. SB 1122 has made it clear that the state, county and city governments cannot require background checks to be done on private gun sales, gift, donations or other transfer.
  5. Arizonans with Disabilities Act: Businesses know that in order to operate they often need to take into consideration patrons/customers that have disabilities. There has been recent talk about this even applying to a business’s website. Nevertheless, it appears that to help out businesses, SB 1406 amends the Arizonans with Disabilities Act to give a business up to 90 days in order to cure violations for structural access before a lawsuit can be filed against them, and websites have also been exempt from from the state accessibility requirements.  Of course, for the website business owners, this doesn’t mean that a case won’t be brought against you in a different state that doesn’t have the same rules (people are crazy litigious like that) but it’s good to know that you’re seemingly safe, for now, with the laws of this state.
  6. Crummy Moving Companies Beware: Nothing says “crummy moving company” like one that will get all of your belongings loaded up and to your (in-state) destination but refuses to unload your stuff if you have a disagreement over the payment – like added surprise charges that you weren’t anticipating. HB 2145 addresses that problem by making it illegal for a moving company to fail to unload your belongings over a disagreement over the bill.  Moving companies have to provide a written contract and disclose all fees.  No more surprises = no more disagreements (hopefully).
  7. End of Life Decisions are Difficult: At the end of one’s life – decisions that are being made take a toll on all of those involved – doctors and nurses included. SB 1439 protects doctors, nurses and entire medical facilities from discrimination when they refuse to participate in or otherwise provide any service or item that would result in the death of an individual.
  8.  License-Plate Covers: For all those who think they are being slick with the fancy license plate covers, electronic devices or film that “hides” your license plates from cameras, etc. – you might want to get rid of them.  SB 1073 makes it illegal to cover your license plate in a manner that obscures the license plate from any angle.
  9. Serving Age of Alcohol Decreased: HB 2047 reduces the age in which a person can serve alcohol.  Under the old law one had to be 19 years old before they could serve alcohol.  Under the new law a person only has to be the age of 18.
  10. Pharmacists and Emergency Prescriptions: It can be scary to run out of necessary medication and not be able to get a refill timely.  SB 1269 now allows pharmacists to issue a one-time emergency refill of a non-controlled medication used to treat an ongoing medical condition in particular circumstances including when the pharmacy has had prior record of the patient such patient has a history of being prescribed such medication.

If you are in the state of Arizona and are looking for that solid “friend in the lawyering business” consider Beebe Law, PLLC!  We truly enjoy helping our  business clients meet and exceed their goals!  Contact us today.

All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon.  All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.  
Anette B.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act: It’s NOT for Reputation Management

Let me start out by saying that if your entire business model is based on submissions of Copyright infringement notices (“Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notices” or more commonly referred to as “DMCA Notices”), you should first have a clue about: 1) what goes in one; and 2) what circumstances will likely be found by the court as “infringement.”  If you can’t even get that right, you are doing a disservice to both your customer and are risking litigation against you.  #PetPeeve Yes, I have services in mind but they shall go unnamed.

I understand that in today’s modern world it is incredibly easy for someone to take a picture that posted of someone on the internet and then turn around and upload it elsewhere.  Indeed, depending on the circumstances, it may very well be an instance of Copyright infringement and a DMCA Notice may very well be warranted.  There is an entire legal analysis that often goes into determining Copyright infringement and those who are untrained should consult legal counsel who regularly handles Copyright infringement issues to help walk through the elements.

Notwithstanding the above, if you think that submitting a DMCA Notice to a site where such image is being used in connection with a review, in an effort to get that review or image to be removed from that site, you are likely going to fall flat and may have just wasted time and money.  Why? Because such use is more likely than not going to be considered “fair use” by a court.

The doctrine of fair use is codified at Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work … for purposes such as criticism [and] commentary … is not an infringement of copyright.”); see also Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir.2001) (“copyright does not immunize a work from comment and criticism.”).  Similarly, courts around the country have upheld the fair use doctrine for the type of claim that most people write to review websites about, i.e., an image connected with a critical review. See Dhillon v. Does 1-10, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2014 WL 722592 (N.D.Cal. 2014) (finding of fair use when Plaintiff’s professional headshot was used for article criticism and commentary); Galvin v. Illinois Republican Party, Slip Copy, 2015 WL 5304625 (N.D.Ill. 2015) (finding of fair use when Plaintiff’s photograph was used in a flyer for the purpose of criticism and commentary); Katz v. Chevaldina, Slip Copy, 2014 WL 2815496, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281, (S.D.Fla. 2014) (finding unauthorized use of unflattering photo of businessman in a blog that is critical of his business practices to be fair use as a matter of law); Katz v. Google, Inc., —F.3d—, 2015 WL 5449883 (11th Cir. 2015) (finding of fair use when blogger used a photograph of a businessman, which he owned the copyright to, in a posting that was to deter others from conducting business with businessman); and Weinberg v. Dirty World, LLC, et al., 2:16-CV-09179 (C.D.Cal. Jul. 27, 2017) (finding fair use when photograph, captured from a video clip which Plaintiff had rights to, was uploaded to an online review website to “ridicule, mock, and critique” the figures in the image).

Moral of the story: if you are considering using a DMCA Notice (or hiring some Reputation Management company who uses this “method”) in effort to try and get postings or images removed from the internet…you should seriously reconsider your strategy. Chances are such companies (or law firms – I’ve seen ridiculous letters from attorneys too) are just taking your money and you may not get the results boasted about. Remember, there has to be a good faith believe that the use is infringing and when there is an abundance of case law that says “fair use”…one questions the “good faith” requirement.

Are you a business that operates a website where you regularly receive DMCA Notices? If you are in the state of Arizona and are looking for that solid “friend in the lawyering business” consider Beebe Law, PLLC!  We truly enjoy helping our  business clients meet and exceed their goals!  Contact us today.

All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon.  All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.  

 

 

Anette B.

Five Benefits to Keeping Your Business Lawyer in the Loop

Let’s face it, the word “lawyer” for many is akin to a four letter expletive that people are offended by. Typically because it reminds people of getting sued and/or having to shell out, often unexpectedly, loads of cash that they rather have spent elsewhere…like on a vacation.  Similarly, like in all professions, not all lawyers are created equal, and not all lawyers really have their client’s financial interests at heart – after all, being a lawyer and having a law firm is a business. I personally pride myself on NOT taking advantage of my clients…giving them direction on how they can do things themselves and helping only where they REALLY need/want it…but after 18+ years in the legal field, I know that not all lawyers share my same client-friendly mindset. It is no wonder that people cringe at the thought of having to use a lawyer.

Lawyers don’t have to be a thorn in your side through.  In fact, a good lawyer can be a business’s greatest adviser and advocate – keeping in mind that a job of a lawyer is to tell you what you NEED to hear which can sometimes be very different than what you WANT to hear. All businesses should have a lawyer or two that they keep in regular contact with and it should be part of your regular business operating budget.

Before you go thinking I’m crazy, here are a few reasons that keeping your lawyer updated on the goings on of your business is advantageous:

  1. Lead Generation: Your lawyer can often be your biggest cheerleader (and lead generator) for future customers. Chances are your lawyer is tapped into many different networks.  You never know when someone they know will need your business’s products or services and a solid referral from your lawyer could be future revenue in your pocket.
  2. Idea Generator: An attorney that understands you, your business, and your goals can be an invaluable asset when it comes to creative thinking.  Brainstorming on new ideas with your lawyer may prove to be helpful in that they may be able to think of concepts outside the box for your business that you may not have already thought about.  What if that lawyer helps you generate the next million dollar idea?
  3. Cost Cutting: One thing that many lawyers are good at is organizing and streamlining processes – it’s part of the way we think.  What if your lawyer was able to give you ideas on how to streamline an existing process that will considerably help cut costs moving forward?  If a few hundred dollars for your lawyer’s time on the telephone could save you thousands of dollars in the next year, wouldn’t you do it?  Sure you would.  You’d be a fool not to.
  4.  Risk Mitigation: When you brainstorm with your lawyer on a new business concept, they can often help you plan your road-map to reach your goals and help you navigate around pitfalls that you might not even think about.  For example, when clients come to me talking about setting up a new business I always ask them the business name and ask if they have considered any reputation issues with that new business name.  The same goes for contracting issues, employee issues, etc. To that end as well, there is a LOT of bad information being circulated around on the internet. Indeed it is wise to conduct your own research but don’t you think it prudent to have your research double-checked by someone who knows where to actually find the correct information when it comes to the law? As Dr. Emily So once said, “better information means better ideas, means better protection.”
  5. Cost Effective: It is a lot cheaper to keep your lawyer up to speed on your business as it grows, even if through a short monthly 15 minute call, than it is to try and ramp your attorney up (trying to teach them everything about your business, including policy changes and the like in a short amount of time) when you suddenly need advice in order to be reactive to a situation – like when you are named as a defendant in a lawsuit.  When you are named as a defendant in a lawsuit, you typically only have 20 days (varies by court and jurisdiction) from the date that you are served with a complaint in order to determine what your defenses are and what sort of a response you will need to file.  That process becomes a whole lot easier if your attorney already knows about you, your business, it’s policies and procedures, etc.  It is also easier to to budget in a few hundred dollars a month to keep your attorney up to date then to get smacked with a request for a $20,000.00 retainer, most of that potentially being eaten up just “learning” about your business, and then having subsequent large litigation bills.

As you can see, there are many reasons to regularly communicate with your attorney and hopefully you would find it more advantageous and beneficial than paying your monthly insurance bill. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!”

If you are in the state of Arizona and are looking for that solid “friend in the lawyering business” consider Beebe Law, PLLC!  We truly enjoy helping our  business clients meet and exceed their goals!  Contact us today.

All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon.  All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.  

 

Anette B.

ADA Compliance and Websites: Yes, it’s really a thing.

I’ve said it before…it seems like everyone today has a website.  Whether you are a stay at home mom blogger, operate an e-commerce boutique shop, a local mechanic shop with a basic website or a full blown tech company – chances are you are no stranger to the internet and websites. Websites are how people find and interact with you or your company. Depending on what your website is designed for, you may have more risks to consider.  For example, as I recently discussed, if your website hosts third-party content, there are risks associated with that kind of a website.  Similarly, if your website collects email addresses so that you can later market to them, that presents an email marketing risk. This article is going to briefly discuss a new potential risk for website operators – that is compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

You might be thinking: “How could a website become an issue with the ADA?”  That was my initial reaction too until I considered people who are blind or have a hearing impairment.  It’s easy to take for granted senses that we are used to having.  Think of all the “closed captioned (cc) for the hearing impaired” text that we have heard/seen on the television in the past.  Well, how does that work for those videos that you are making and posting to your website?  How do people navigate your website if they can’t see? Until a recent conference I had never even thought about how a visually impaired person accesses the internet.  I have since discovered that the visually impaired often access the internet through a special screen reader.  JAWS seems to be the most popular and I found a few interesting YouTube videos that give a demonstration of the JAWS program from different perspectives.  If you are curious, like I was and want a unique perspective that may help you with your website accessibility, you can see two of the links I found HERE and HERE.  The second video is from a student’s perspective which has a lot of good insight – including difficulties with .pdf documents, etc.

The above examples coupled with the legal actions that have been taken against websites in relation to an ADA claim, and the fact that I am starting to see solicitations from Continuing Learning Education companies teaching attorneys how to initiate actions, sends a solid message that this is something people/businesses need to be thinking about as they move forward with their existing websites and/or build out  new websites.

THINGS TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND:

  • The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employments, State and local government services, places of public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation.
  • These laws can be enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through private lawsuits and indeed there are cases where the DOJ has specifically stated in rulings that websites should be designed so that they are accessible to those who have physical disabilities including vision and hearing.
  • The DOJ has already required some websites to modify their sites to comply with the ADA guidelines – see the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
  • There is no set required standards YET but it’s expected soon and they may require compliance within 12 months from the date of publication of the new standards to the public register.  If you have a big website, and perhaps a lot of changes that will need to be made, that isn’t a lot of time.

WHAT IS BEING LOOKED AT FOR COMPLIANCE?

WebAIM.org appears to be a pretty decent resource for information.  They have a pretty comprehensive checklist that may assist you and your website developing team out, however, below is a few points for consideration:

Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.

  • Guideline 1.1: Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need online – think of large print, speech, symbols or simpler language.
  • Guideline 1.2: Provide captions and alternatives for multimedia.
  • Guideline 1.3: Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example a more simplistic layout) without losing information or structure.
  • Guideline 1.4: Make it easier for users to see and hear content including separating foreground from background.

User interface components and navigation must be operable.

  • Guideline 2.1: Make all functionality available from a keyboard.
  • Guideline 2.2: Provide users enough time to read and use content.
  • Guideline 2.3: Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures (like flashing content)
  • Guideline 2.4: Provide ways to help users navigate, find content, and determine where they are.

Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable.

  • Guideline 3.1: Make text content readable and understandable.
  • Guideline 3.2: Make web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.
  • Guideline 3.3: Help users avoid and correct mistakes.

Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.

  • Guideline 4.1: Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies.

WHAT IF MY WEBSITE ISN’T COMPLIANT?   

For websites that aren’t compliant the following are some things you should consider:

  • Have a 24/7 telephone number serviced by a live customer service agent who can provide access to the information on the website – the phone number must be identified on the website and be accessible using a screen reader.
  • Consider starting to make adjustments to your website to help ensure you are compliant.

NEED HELP ENSURING COMPLIANCE?

It is always a good idea to get a formal legal opinion on these kinds of matters if in doubt. Being proactive is a far better position to be in than being reactive and in a time crunch and money might be tight. If you are in the state of Arizona, and need help with suggestions on how to help make your website ADA compliant or would like to discuss this topic generally so that you have a better understanding of how this issue might impact your business, Beebe Law, PLLC can help!  Contact us today.

All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon.  All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.  

 

 

Anette B.

Fighting Fair on The Internet: Part 4 | Crossing the Line Online – Don’t be THAT Guy!

If you have been keeping up with this Fighting Fair on the Internet blog series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 you are already aware that I think that most of the issues we see happening today are due to the increased use of technology, the loss of real human connection, and that so many people give opinions that really are nothing more than a “turd trophy” and should be “flushed” down the proverbial toilet.  So many people have developed some odd level of narcissism wherein they feel compelled to step into a conversation, not involving them, and render some kind of a comment, often from a place of needing to be “right,” that really does nothing but perpetuate negativity in one form or another.  This type of action is akin to the bumbling belligerent drunk guy (or girl) at the bar who walks up to a table of friends having a conversation and adding in his/her “two cents” (that’s my sarcastic way of saying the person said something offensive) based on a single sentence that was overheard.  No one really likes THAT person at that point in time.  After all, no one asked stumbling Captain Drunko, who might smell like a soggy bar towel, to come interrupt the conversation to give his polished turd trophy of an opinion…and a lot of times either THAT person ends up getting kicked out of the bar, getting their butt kicked, or THAT person feels like a total d-bag the next day once his/her friends informs him/her of the prior nights “entertainment.”  Maybe you have seen THAT person before.  Maybe you have even been THAT person a time or two.  Perhaps you have been on both sides of that coin in the past.  Regardless, and I pass no judgment here – crap happens, but you know what I am talking about.

Just as there can be consequences for being a belligerent and obnoxious drunk person at a bar (getting 86’d, getting your butt kicked, having the law get involved and possibly having to pay fines, and what I call “fool’s remorse”) there can also be very similar consequences for what you write on the internet.  I am not going to touch on the problems that can arise for people who get online and write a truthful account of a situation; that, along with many other issues, are for later parts to this series.  What I am going to get into here, in a very broad sense, is what can happen when you cross the line when posting online.

GETTING 86’D:  So you spout off and you get “kicked out” of the joint.  This seems like the least of potential problematic ramifications and maybe you don’t care if you get banned from a particular chat room or social media outlet.  In today’s technological world, chances are you’d just find a way around the system anyway.  I personally can think of many options and a lot of them are hard for any typical website administrator to actually detect and keep up with.  Nevertheless, if you have spent a lot of time building up friends, connections, adding photos or other content that may no longer be on your computer/phone, etc. this might be detrimental to you.  That cute picture of you and granny that you posted to your private account before she passed away or that video of that baby’s first steps…GONE FOREVER…if you do something that results in your account being suspended.

GETTING YOUR BUTT KICKED:  Just like the drunkard at the bar who gets out of hand with the wrong people can wind up on the receiving end of a serious butt kicking, when you get online and start spouting off, you never really know who you are spouting off to and what kind of a person they are.  It’s made even worse if you are like most people and don’t control your security settings on your social media very well.  Chances are you give out WAY too much information about yourself.  That is another topic for another day.  Nevertheless, you would be surprised at how much information people can gather from the tid-bits that people just leave open to public access.  What happens if you spout off and the person happens to be some major creeper with bad intentions?  They figure out who you are, who your friend and family are, and eventually where you all work and live.  Are you okay with that?  Okay…for all you tough guys out there saying you’d just meet them at the door and shoot them (hey, I support the Second Amendment too)…let’s be real here.  There is always the possibility that someone could come find you, or your unsuspecting family, and do something.  There is enough chaos on the news to prove that there are crazy people out there willing to go to drastic extremes.  I don’t know that I need to go on here…you all get my point.

THE LAW:  This is the one that I see the most of due to the nature of my position in the legal field.  If you get all worked up about something and then get online to spout off, especially if you embellish the story or otherwise purposefully tell a lie as a way to “get even” with someone for something, chances are, eventually, you are going to have to face some legal consequences for that.  Generally speaking, unless the account you give is opinion or is 100% the truth, what you say “can and will be held against you in a court of law.”  The most common cases in these situations are defamation actions that may be associated with additional causes of action depending on what you say.  Yes, there are defenses to defamation actions (truth and opinion being a few of them) however, so many people seemingly are confused about the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion.  Just because you say “In my opinion…” and then go on to make some sort of allegation doesn’t necessarily make that statement an opinion.  Remember, you have the right to free speech, but that is not absolute.  Just as you can’t run into a movie theater and yell “fire!” you can’t commit defamation without a very real potential for legal consequences…typically expensive ones.  You work hard for your money…do you really want to have to give it to the person, and their attorneys, that you were mad at in the first place?

FOOL’S REMORSE:  We have all done something at one or another that we aren’t exactly proud of.  It’s even worse if whatever occurred happened in public.  There is a reason that a lot of us “older kids” say that we are sure glad that were were “young and dumb” before smart phones and social media were around.  No seriously, it’s true!  Some things just DON’T need to make it to the public!  This whole “social media” thing has become, well, too social.  It  seems like long gone are the days of keeping “dirty laundry” in the hamper where it belongs.  Now, if you have a dispute with someone, chances are, for better or worse, someone, somewhere is going to talk about it on the internet.  Further, now with the ease and convenience of being able to post online under the perceived cloak of “anonymity,” more and more people are openly hanging out their dirty laundry for everyone to see.  Hell hath no furry like the wrath of an angry ex…ex-boyfriend/girlfriend,  ex-husband/wife, ex-business partner, etc.  Instead of dealing with matters in private, people are now dragging their disputes online and saying things, usually based on emotion at the time, that can be very hurtful.  To top it off, once something is up online, depending on where you put it, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to remove.  Well, what happens when your feelings for that person change?  You know, like after you have had the time to calm down and truly get over those feelings?  If you are the “normal” person, whatever that means, you are probably going to feel bad about it…but you may not be able to rectify that situation.  Then, not only is the person that you decided to spew emotional word vomit all over feeling the pain, you are too.  It’s just not worth it!

This obviously has been a brief overview, however, I think it will probably resonate with many.  There are so many people going out and “running at the mouth” online before they really take time to consider the consequences of their actions.  These rants can impact not only you, but those around you.  Remember friends, in this context, temporary solutions can become permanent problems.  If you REALLY need to get something off of your chest, and want to write about it, go “old school” and grab a pen and paper!  Not only will you get the cathartic release from being able to get those emotions out on paper but it will also help keep you from getting into trouble.  You can always toss the paper in the trash when that emotion dissipates…  If that doesn’t work, save yourself a lot of grief by talking to a friend or family member that is going to help you calm down and steer you in a positive direction…  Oh, and watch out for those “friends” that want to instigate and entice you into being THAT guy.  In our bar scenario from above…that would be the friend that likes to order you shot after shot, get you riled up and push you into the crowd just to see “what happens.”  Yeah…that “good time Charlie” probably isn’t the right person to go to when you need this kind of help.

Until next time friends…

P.S. – If any of this resonates with you, or you agree with that I have said, please consider sharing this article and/or leave me a comment.  I’d love to hear your feedback and/or about your personal experiences.