Tracking Tech Case Provides Guidance on Customer Opt Outs

From healthcare apps, to mobile devices, to utilities, services are collecting and aggregating customer data across many different types of connected devices. Many mobile apps and services rely on a consumer’s location information. As more mobile apps connect to the Internet to send and receive location data, the FTC, legislators, privacy advocates, and others have identified location information as a particularly sensitive category of data. A recent study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University contained shocking revelations about the frequency with which location information is gathered and transmitted to companies through their mobile apps. At the same time, the recent settlement with in-store retail customer tracking provider Nomi highlights the FTC’s increased scrutiny of data gathering practices and disclosures of mobile application developers.

It is no secret that retailers could derive significant business intelligence from the real-time moments through stores. This is one of the areas around which companies innovate around customers’ private information. For example, Nomi Technologies, a company whose technology allows retailers to track consumers’ movements through their stores, made headlines when it agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misled consumers about opting out of their tracking services. This is not why you want to have your company’s innovations in the news.

Business counsel both inside and outside of companies developing applications that leverage mobile geolocation data of consumers and employees should be aware of the many issues that are developing around this area such as: How is geolocation information gathered and how does data flow from device, to app to, third party? How is it shared and used in mobile advertising? When is consent required and how should stakeholders obtain such consent?

 

HealthCare & IT: mHealth, Telehealth and Telemedicine Developments

20120809-214100.jpg

Global and China mHealth App Market Size and Forecast up to 2014: Acute Market Reports

The report introduced MHealth App basic information about international market analysis, China domestic market analysis, Macroeconomic environment and economic situation analysis, MHealth App industry policy and plan, MHealth App product specification, manufacturing process, cost structure and statistics in China.

‘meHealth’ for HIV in Africa

Combination of mHealth and e-health technologies and services to give personalized health support to anyone in the health system.
M-health: Set to Grow Its Clout

On the back of growing awareness about information and communications technology (ICT)-led healthcare services among users, m-health saw healthcare become a buzzing and interesting space in India.
Diabetes tools progressing from monitoring to proactive disease management

Developing diabetes care management strategies that extend beyond the clinic environment, reports mHealth Intelligence.

App, portal help spina bifida patients with self-care tasks

“The objective of this research is to develop an innovative mHealth system to support self-skincare tasks, skin condition monitoring, adherence to self-care regimens, etc…

Digital healthcare services in 2016 (and beyond)

Solving the complex problem of medication adherence could have a huge impact on lowering cost of care; It’s no surprise that millions of dollars have already been invested in digital health software to guide the process. In 2016, expect the basics of digital adherence — self-reporting, tracking refills and chronic disease outcomes, etc. — will receive a boost from the use of sensors to collect confirming data, whether it’s via breath analysis, urine sampling, or another non-invasive method.

Mining Data and Privacy: A Primer, Special Areas and State Laws

On Sept. 10, 2015, as part of the Mining Data and Privacy: A Primer Continuing Legal Education presentation moderated by the ISBA Intellectual Property committee, I presented the topic:

ISBA Privacy CLE – “Special Areas”: “Discover the security and privacy issues that have arisen in a number of special areas – HIPAA, COPPA, special state laws and regulations that govern online privacy, protection of personal data in court filings.”

The presentation is available here.

 

Changes in Global Privacy Affect Small Business Too

Privacy 1

Changes in Global Privacy Affect Small Business Too

In case you missed it, on October 6, 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a long-awaited privacy ruling in the case involving Maximilian Schrems, the Ireland Data Protection Authority (DPA) and Facebook. Back in 2000, the EU Commission decided that personal data sent to US organizations that sign up to the Safe Harbor scheme is adequately protected. Safe Harbor organizations self-certify compliance with certain privacy principles, and the scheme is enforced by the US FTC.

Background

Simply put, Schrems sued to prohibit transfer of his personal data from Facebook Ireland to Facebook in the U.S. due to widely perceived flaws in U.S. data protection following the Edward Snowden NSA revelations.

Why it Matters

Over 5,000 U.S. companies “self-certify” under Safe Harbor, and their European partners and customers rely on Safe Harbor for data transfers into the U.S. The decision may impact many small to medium sized business who use social media for marketing and business development, as well as businesses that use cloud-based services for gathering, processing and sharing data. Transfers of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from the EU to the U.S must either be authorized by national data protection authorities, or be able to rely on one of the legal exceptions.

Although the Safe Harbor companies publicly committed to apply the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles to the personal data they brought into the U.S. (and some companies passed these commitments on to other entities under Onward Transfer agreements), companies that disregard those commitments, with regard to either stored data or new data transfers, could expose itself to FTC enforcement against “unfair or deceptive practices” or judicial complaints based on U.S. contract, fraud, or tort law, as well as to enforcement in the EU – such as complaints before labor tribunals, courts, and data protection authorities.

Don’t Panic, Yet

While the decision is likely to have a significant impact on the transfer of personal data from the EU to U.S. recipients, EU leaders say it’s not time to panic yet. Experts have pointed out the alternative legal bases for transatlantic data transfers that exist, such as contracts, Binding Corporate Rules or actual, express consent. Many businesses may be able to use these methods and continue their transatlantic data transfers.

Domestic Developments

At the same time, California leads the U.S. in enacting new privacy legislation. Last week California passed legislation that may equate to what the EU wants to see on the federal level. According to §1546.1 b) of CalECPA any government entity must have a warrant, wiretap order, order of electronic reader or a subpoena if they want to compel any individual or a service provider to disclose information stored on their devices (mobile phones, computer, tablets, tv, servers you name it). §1546.1 c) states that government agencies cannot access, either physically or remotely, a device unless they have a warrant, wiretap order, consent of the authorized possessor of the device, if the government in good faith, believes there is an emergency that could jeopardize someone’s life or physical integrity (in which case they’ll have to get a warrant within 3 days later) or in case the devices are confiscated from inmates in state prisons.

Concerned about whether your business is at risk for violating EU data protection rules? Don’t be. We offer a FREE, no-obligation one (1) hour consultation to identify potential issues. The professionals at the Adler Law Group can help you review, enhance and adopt standardized contracts and implement methodologies for approaching these challenges by setting objectives, determining scope, allocating resources, and developing agreements that will efficiently and effective manage risks, while keeping pace with the business.

Please call: (866) 734-2568, click: http://www.adler-law.com, or write: David @ adler-law.com.

Using Copyright To Protect Fashion Designs

A recent case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals examined the question “Are the stripes, chevrons, zigzags, and color blocks that adorn most cheerleading uniforms sufficiently creative to be protected under US Copyright law?” The case, Varsity Brands et al. v. Star Athletica, No. 14-5237 (6th Cir. 2015), involves a lawsuit between competing suppliers of cheerleading uniforms and “warm-ups.” Plaintiff Varsity, claimed that defendant Star had copied protectable elements of it’s uniform designs. The District court agreed with Star, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The case holds important lessons for creative professionals seeking to protect their original work in an increasingly completive environment where “knock-offs” and copycat designers are all too common.

Back in 2013, I published “Fashion Law: Protecting Brands and Designs,” an article in Landslide, the legal publication of the Intellectual Property section of the American Bar Association. The article is available here. Although the article addressed protection under Trademark and Patent, in addition to Copyright, one of the primary issues was and is when, if ever, can the design features incorporated into the design of a useful article be identified separately from, and exist independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article?” The Varsity case provides useful insight and analysis on that question.

Are Fashion Designs Protectable Under Copyright?

The Varsity case answers with a resounding “yes.” First, although copyright protects creative works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression (17 U.S.C. 102(a)), protection requires a certain amount of “originality.” Because so much of fashion design is derivative of what has come before, the hurdle for protection of fashion designs is the tension with §102(a)(5) of the Copyright Act. (17 U.S.C. 102(a)(5)) That section protects pictorial, graphic, and sculptural aspects of apparel if, and only to the extent that, the design features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” (17 U.S.C. 101) §

Courts have viewed this requirement as requiring either “physical separability” or “conceptual separability,” a test that they have struggled to pin down. However, courts that have addressed the issue in the case of designs of clothing have routinely viewed clothing utilitarian because they “cover the wearer’s body and protect the wearer from the elements.” Celebration Int’l, Inc. v. Chosun Int’l, Inc., 234 F. Supp. 2d 905, 912 (S.D. Ind. 2002) “Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea—not the idea itself.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954)

Guidance For Lawyers That Advise Fashion Designers.

In order to help fashion designers protect their ideas, it is important to understand how the court evaluates the protect ability of design elements. The Court engaged in a lengthy examination of the various tests applied by different courts before adopting the widely used “hybrid” approach. According to the Court the best approach to determining whether a design is a copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work is to ask a series of five questions from the Copyright Act: 1) is the design a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work? 2) Is it a design of “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function?” 3) What are the utilitarian aspects? 4) Can the viewer of the design identify “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural” features separately from the utilitarian aspects? and 5) Can those features exist independently? The Court added that the design process may also help determine whether a design feature is necessary to the design are or to the functionality.

Key Take Always From The Varsity Case.

First, Varsity started from a position of strength. It has registered it’s designs with the US Copyright Office. The Court gave strong deference to the Copyright Office. The lesson for designers is that it’s never too early to seek registration of your work.

Second, be mindful of the aesthetic versus functional distinction during the design process. Design elements that are required to make the item function as a garment will not be protectable.

What Marketers Need to Know About the FCC’s Recent TCPA Ruling

On July 10, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Declaratory Ruling and Order (“Declaratory Ruling”) in response to 21 separate requests seeking clarification or other action on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The Declaratory Ruling has implications for any entity that utilizes wireless phone numbers for contacting consumers. The most relevant highlights of the Declaratory Ruling are described below.

The TCPA makes it unlawful to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.

First, just to clarify, this is not a “new federal law.” This Declaratory Ruling was issued by the FCC in response to requests seeking clarification on the TCPA.

1. The Ruling expands the meaning of ATDS (or “autodialer”) and requires a case-by-case determination of their inclusion within the reach of the TCPA.

The FCC does not distinguish between calls to wireless telephone numbers made by predicative dialers and calls made “when the equipment operates independently of such lists and software packages.” Recognizing the developments in technology, the FCC stated that an ATDS is defined by the basic capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.” “Capacity” does not exempt equipment that lacks the “present ability” to dial randomly or sequentially. Rejecting definitions that fit “only a narrow set of circumstances” in favor of broad definitions which reflect a legislative intent to accommodate the full range of telephone services and telemarketing practices,” the FCC believes that the TCPA covers capacity of a current configuration and potential functionalities.

As a result, the Ruling does not specify the “exact contours” of an autodialer. Therefore, there is no hard-and-fast rule to enable a business to easily determine compliance risks under the TCPA. The bigger – and still unresolved – questions is whether dialing systems that require human intervention are or are not autodialers. In fact, the FCC expressly rejected a request to adopt “human intervention” as the test to identify whether a dialer is an autodialer. Still open is the question of whether human intervention that will take equipment outside the scope of the autodialer definition.

2. The Ruling clarified issues related to calling “reassigned” wireless numbers: a “called party” is “the [current] subscriber, i.e., the consumer assigned the telephone number dialed and billed for the call, or the non-subscriber customary user of a telephone number included in a family or business calling plan” as opposed to the “intended recipient” or “intended called party.”

This is really about “consent” of the called party to receive a call/text message. Voluntarily providing a cell number has previously been held to constitute initial consent from the current subscriber or non-subscriber customary user of the phone, as of the time the call is made.

In the case of a number being reassigned, the FCC recognized that a service using an ATDS may not have actual knowledge that the number has been assigned. To address this, the Ruling provides that, so long as a caller does not have actual knowledge that the number has been reassigned, it may make one call to a reassigned number without liability. Note that the FCC stated that simply by placing a call to a reassigned wireless number, the caller has constructive notice that the number has been reassigned, and can incur TCPA liability for every non-compliant call placed thereafter. This conclusion was criticized by the two dissents who asserted that the one call standard would require callers “to do the impossible” (discern whether a number has been reassigned from a single call, without more).

2. The FCC reiterated that a called party may revoke consent at any time and through any reasonable means, and callers may not limit the manner in which revocation may occur. IV. Exceptions for Pro-Consumer Messages About Time-Sensitive Financial and Healthcare Issues

4. A one-time text immediately sent in response to a consumer’s request for information, such as a coupon to apply to an offer, does not violate the TCPA, however the Ruling casts doubt on whether Prior Express Written Consent can be established on the basis of a text opt-in response to an advertisement that contains the TCPA required disclosures.

Given the guidance and ambiguities from the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling, now would be a good time for marketing firms to review their phone and text message marketing polices:

  1. Review policies around the collection and use of phone numbers provided by consumers;
  1. Ensure that the processes for collecting phone numbers distinguishes between wireless and residential numbers, and have opt-out provisions in place to ensure that users of reassigned numbers are not wrongfully contacted;
  1. Review wireless number lists for currency and accuracy; and
  1. Review and assess messaging and marketing programs and vendors.

Should Google be forced to offer privacy apps? EU fight offers test

Featured Image -- 1234

Fortune

An app maker called Disconnect thinks consumers have a right to block advertisers, including Google [fortune-stock symbol=”GOOG”], from tracking what they do on their phones. The search giant, unsurprisingly, doesn’t see it this way and has repeatedly thrown Disconnect out of its Google Play store—meaning Android users have no easy way to access the tool.

Now, the app maker has filed a complaint with the EU, arguing that Google’s behavior is anti-competitive. The outcome could determine whether large companies like Google and Apple should be obliged to distribute more pro-privacy tools on their platforms.

In case you’re unfamiliar, Disconnect works by blocking third party advertising and analytic services that lurk in the background when consumers visit an app or website (users can view what sites Disconnect is blocking, and whitelist them if they choose). The tool can also help webpages load faster thanks to less ad bulk.

In its five…

View original post 507 more words