Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On November 4, 2011, Congressmen Edward Markey (D-MA) and Joe Barton (R-TX) reiterated their privacy concerns over the handling of customer preferences in connection with Verizon’s new advertising initiative. After learning that Verizon had notified its customers of the implications of a targeted advertising campaign, on October 6, 2011, Reps. Markey and Barton, Co-Chairmen of the bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, wrote a letter containing several inquiries to both Verizon and Verizon Wireless. In particular, Reps. Markey and Barton requested clarification regarding the companies’ potential disclosure of aggregated customer location information and website viewing history to third parties.

On September 14, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) met with representatives of the European Advertising Standards Alliance (“EASA”) and IAB Europe, to discuss the industry’s new self-regulatory code of conduct for online behavioral advertising (the “Code”), which was released on April 14, 2011.

Over the past several weeks, online tracking practices involving the use of Flash cookies and ETags have been the subject of new research studies, class action lawsuits and significant media attention.

On July 12, 2011, Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society reported the preliminary results of tests conducted with experimental software designed to detect third-party tracking.  Over the months spent developing “a platform for measuring dynamic web content,” researchers at the Stanford Security Lab analyzed tracking on the websites of Network Advertising Initiative (“NAI”) participants by observing how cookies are altered when a user opts out of behavioral tracking on the NAI website, or enables Do Not Track.

On April 13, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”), which seeks to “protect and enhance consumer privacy” both online and offline by imposing certain notice and choice requirements with respect to the collection and use of personal information.

In late December 2010, consumers filed two class action lawsuits against Apple Inc., claiming that several applications they downloaded from Apple’s App Store sent their personal information to third parties without their consent.  Specifically, the consumers claim that Apple allowed third party advertising networks to follow user activity through the Unique Device Identifiers that Apple assigns each device that downloads applications.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also named several application developers such as Pandora and The Weather Channel as co-defendants.

On December 7, 2010, Microsoft announced in a blog post that Internet Explorer 9 will feature a new “opt-in mechanism” and “Tracking Protection Lists” to help consumers control tracking of their online activity.  Since the Federal Trade Commission released its privacy report last week, there has been considerable debate regarding consumer protection on the Internet, especially with respect to the “Do Not Track” concept.  Microsoft’s blog post states, “We believe that the combination of consumer opt-in, an open platform for publishing of Tracking Protection ...

On December 1, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission released its long-awaited report on online privacy entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.”  Observers expected the report to address the concept of privacy by design, the burdens placed on consumers to read and understand privacy notices and make privacy choices, the provision of individual access to personal data and the rights of consumers with respect to Internet tracking.  The FTC report introduces a privacy framework to “establish certain common assumptions and bedrock protections on which both consumers and businesses can rely as they engage in commerce.”  It includes the following elements:

On November 4, 2010, the New York Privacy Officers' Forum hosted a live program to discuss emerging issues in behavioral advertising.  Peter Weingard from online advertising technology and services company Collective began the program with a presentation highlighting the evolution of the advertising industry and the benefits of online behavioral advertising to advertisers, publishers and consumers.  Hunton & Williams partner Aaron Simpson followed Mr. Weingard with a presentation focusing on the emerging legal issues associated with the technology, including a discussion ...

On October 4, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) stated in a press release that a recently enacted environmental law (Act No. 2010-788 of July 12, 2010, known as “Grenelle II”) expands the CNIL’s authority to regulate devices used to measure the viewership of advertisements in public places like shopping malls, train stations and airports.  Grenelle II introduces a new provision under Article L. 581-9 of the French Environmental Code, which states: “Any system that automatically measures the audience of an advertising device or which analyzes the typology or behavior of individuals passing within the vicinity of such advertising device requires prior approval of the CNIL.”

On July 27, 2010, the German Federal Network Agency, the Bundesnetzagentur (or “BNetzA”), issued a press release stating that it had recently levied €194,000 in administrative fines in two cases against companies accused of violating a ban on cold calling.  The cases involved consumer complaints implicating the companies in several illegal acts.  The companies claimed they had obtained prior consent from the consumers they contacted.  The BNetzA, which is the regulatory office for electricity, gas, telecommunications, post and railway markets in Germany, rejected the companies’ argument on the grounds that the “consent” was based on the consumers’ implicit acceptance of the terms of use associated with certain Internet games.  The terms of use included a provision regarding a participant’s consent to telemarketing by partners, sponsors and other companies.  The BNetzA stated that, because these terms of use did not satisfy the legal requirements for consent, the company had not obtained valid consent to call the consumers.

On June 24, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party adopted Opinion 2/2010 (the “Opinion”) providing further clarification on online behavioral advertising.  The Working Party also issued a press release on this topic.  Although the scope of the Opinion is limited to online profiling, its interpretation of Article 5(3) of the amended e-Privacy Directive provides some useful clarifications regarding the legal framework applicable to online behavioral advertising and the use of cookies.  We provide a short analysis of the Opinion below.

Opt-in?  Browser setting as opt-in?  Opt-out?  The Opinion clarifies the Working Party’s interpretation of the new Article 5(3) and Recital 66 of the e-Privacy Directive.  According to the Working Party, Article 5(3) and Recital 66, along with the General Data Protection Directive (“Directive 95/46/EC”), require prior opt-in consent since “prior opt-in consent mechanisms are better suited to deliver informed consent.”

On January 29, 2009, the German Federal Network Agency (the “Agency”) stated in a press release that it has imposed fines for unauthorized telephone advertising in six cases.  This brings the total to nine procedures (resulting in €500,000 in fines) during the months of December 2009 and January 2010, and marks the first time the Agency has imposed sanctions for violations of the prohibition on unauthorized telephone advertising and for breach of the caller ID requirement for marketing calls.

A class action complaint filed on December 9, 2009, in Illinois federal court alleges that WideOpen West, Finance, LLC ("WOW"), an Internet service provider, violated its users' privacy by "installing spyware devices on its broadband networks."  Valentine v. WideOpen West (N.D. Ill., No. 1:09-cv-07653).  This action against WOW follows the October 6, 2009, dismissal by a district court in California of similar claims against six out-of-state ISP defendants (including WOW) filed in November 2008 by the same lead plaintiff.  The court in Valentine v. NebuAd, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal., No. 3:08-cv-05113) found that the ISP defendants were not subject to personal jurisdiction in California, leaving the now-defunct NebuAd as the only defendant in that case.  Plaintiff Valentine has now brought this action against WOW in the Northern District of Illinois.

On October 5, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued amendments to its Guides for the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (“Guides”).  Reactions to the amendment have primarily focused on the provisions that require bloggers to disclose their relationship with companies whose products they endorse.  Largely absent from the commentary, however, have been observations regarding theories articulated in the amendments that demonstrate the risk of enforcement for companies that do not have a blog and that do not use third-party bloggers for promotion.

In its announcement that it would convene a series of public roundtables to address developing privacy issues, the Federal Trade Commission requested empirical data on consumer privacy expectations. In response to that request, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Pennsylvania have released a study entitled "Americans Reject Tailored Advertising." Survey data reported in the study found that 66% of Americans reject targeted advertising online; 86% reject such ads when told they are made possible through online data collection. The ...

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) recently upheld a complaint under the UK Committee of Advertising Practice Code (“CAP Code”) which requires UK marketers to obtain the explicit consent of consumers before disclosing their personal information to third parties for direct marketing purposes.

On December 1, 2008, a strict anti-spam law came into effect in Israel.  The legislation, enacted as an amendment to the country’s Communications Law, prohibits the delivery of advertisements using mobile text messaging, email, fax or automatic dialing systems without first obtaining the recipient’s explicit written consent.  The law contains several exceptions to the prior consent requirement.  For example, advertisers may reach out to businesses to inquire whether they wish to receive marketing communications.  Advertisers also may send unsolicited marketing ...