Published on:

The smartphone has brought a world of possibility to the average consumer’s fingertips. Now, this has come to include mobile banking. With fast-paced lifestyles and long lines at the banks, mobile banking has emerged as a thrilling convenience. However, this convenience brings cybersecurity concerns. Therefore, consumers who have turned to mobile banking for their financial needs must protect their financial privacy from cybersecurity breaches.

What Is Mobile Banking?

Mobile banking allows customers to access their financial institutions and conduct transactions through their mobile devices. Initially, this began with SMS Banking, which allowed customers to conduct various financial transactions by sending and accepting SMS messages or “texts.” In its most basic form, mobile banking allows customers to access their bank accounts and check on financial transactions. However, as the systems have progressed, customers can now make bill payments, transfer funds, and monitor deposits. Indeed, customers can now manage their investment portfolios and rearrange their investments through a smartphone or tablet. This has certainly increased everyday conveniences. However, it has also contributed to the speed with which finances can shift. Although, customers can review and monitor their accounts faster and more regularly, this also means greater security threats for the underlying financial information. This expansive access may lead to greater unauthorized breaches.

What Are The Security Threats Related to Mobile Banking?

US News reported in a recent poll that only 31 percent of companies have a mobile banking security strategy in place.  Mobile banking is less secure than in-person banking, or banking on a computer, because mobile security is divided between the various companies involved in providing the application.  For example, in the case of an application for mobile banking, this can involve the operating system designers, manufacturers of the application, banking agency, company that provides the smartphone or tablet, and even the company that provides web access.  Therefore, while each of these intermediaries may take steps to provide safety, it is important to have a comprehensive security system in place to fully protect mobile banking.  While financial institutions are prominent leaders in the movement to provide greater cybersecurity, mobile users can take steps to ensure their financial privacy remains private.  For instance, it is important to carefully review banking information through the mobile device.  The smaller screen has been reported to lead to greater mistakes, which allows more un-noticed breaches. Furthermore, always make sure to require a password at every login. When you are done accessing your account, log out of your account and close the application. Applications that remain running in the background allow for easier access to cyber-criminals. Of course, if you detect an error or discrepancy in your account, contact your financial institution immediately.  As with all cybersecurity breaches, early detection and action is the key to a fast resolution.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are experienced and skilled in the legal and practical implications of cybersecurity.  You may contact us to speak with an attorney who can explain how you can take steps to better protect your mobile security.

Published on:

In the aftermath of high profile cybersecurity breaches, businesses and consumers are alert to the real dangers of cyber vulnerability. In response, various government agencies have taken up efforts to protect against future breaches. Thus, consumers and businesses must continue to take steps to protect themselves and their private information. Accordingly, the office of California’s Attorney General has issued Cybersecurity Guidelines aimed at reducing the threat of electronic security leaks. Furthermore, these guidelines set the standard that businesses must meet to protect customer privacy.

What Are Attorney General’s Cybersecurity Guidelines?

The Attorney General outlined the basics steps to “minimize cyber vulnerability.”  First, anyone could be a target. Therefore, assume cybersecurity could affect you and take preemptive steps to protect your network.  Also, it is important to know where you store your data. The guidelines are directed towards small to medium-sized firms.  So, they focus on the importance for businesses to know which third parties hold company information. It is important to be familiar with these third-party security measures. If a data storage company is not taking proper steps to protect cybersecurity, it may be time to seek different storage options or take steps to counter the vulnerabilities. Alternatively, if your business stores information on the cloud, make sure to back up information, and store data only with secure entities. The overall point is that in the event of a breach, the level of preparedness will limit the consequences.  Next, encrypt your data as an added measure of security. It is also helpful to include firewall and antivirus protection on all devices.  Additionally, make sure to conduct banking and other financial transactions with reliable vendors.  Especially when dealing with third party financial information, the safety and security of those transactions are vital to ongoing business.  Finally, it is important to note that these guidelines are the minimum requirements. It is not a comprehensive list and companies must take care to implement personalized measures based on their cybersecurity needs.

What Additional Steps Will Improve Cyber Protections?

Before putting together any comprehensive cybersecurity plan, an entity must understand the threats it faces. This includes reviewing where data is stored and assessing particular and potential threats. Determining the dangers will help put together an accurate risk-based safety plan that best addresses your specific needs. Additionally, it is important to evaluate a business’s cybersecurity plan in context. In general, each business exists in relation to its manufacturers, suppliers, distributers, and customers. And, each link is implicated in the event of a breach. Therefore, it is important to consider how reasonable measures will help protect their information and security. It is also important because if there is a cybersecurity breach, the appropriate measures will help protect those links and limit the spread of the breach. This is a crucial step for businesses that hope to return to their regular course of business and maintain business relationships.

At our law firm, we help our clients review their cybersecurity needs and potential threats. Then, with the help of an experienced and knowledgeable attorney, we help you put together a cybersecurity plan to protect your business and customers. You may contact us to discuss your cyber protection needs today.

Published on:

In a decision released June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement officials could not search a suspect’s cell phone or electronic devices as part of an arrest. In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court maintained that the officials would need to secure a warrant to look through those devices. This holding is especially monumental because it establishes the country’s highest court’s position that electronic devices enjoy privacy protection under the Constitution. Indeed, the Court notes several times throughout the decision that since electronic devices contain so much of users’ most private data, these devices must enjoy a heightened level of privacy.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we are fully knowledgeable and experienced in the practice of electronic privacy protection for individuals and businesses. Our office handles all civil matters dealing with violations of cyber privacy. Indeed, by speaking to an attorney, you can take precautionary steps to help protect your privacy and personal data.

How Will Riley v. California Impact Individual Privacy Rights?

The Supreme Court emphasized that today’s electronic devices, such as cell phones and smartphones, have the capacity to store a wealth of private information. This includes financial data, contact information, private documents, and information about third parties. Also, smartphones have immense storage capacity. For example, by looking through a phone, a law enforcement official could access the user’s “cloud” and all the data that is stored in there. A “cloud” is a remote storage location, where users can upload and save personal data—including contact information, personal documentation, and communication history. While police officers may have an interest in investigating this information, the Supreme Court focused first on the individual’s constitutionally protected privacy rights. Since searching electronic devices allows access to such broad information, it also threatens to reach implicate third parties with data available on the device. Indeed, this search could also incriminate electronic storage companies—such as Internet service providers, cloud computing companies, and third party storage sites.

How Will Riley v. California Impact Corporate Privacy Rights?

A broad interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision suggests that this holding will tighten electronic privacy in all areas, not just as it applies to cell phones during an arrest. For example, the Department of Justice has used the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to argue that it is entitled to search without a warrant the contents of emails opened or stored for more than 180 days. However, courts have increasingly been ruling that the government must first obtain a warrant and a subpoena is not enough. The Court is careful to point out that the facts are limited to searches incident to arrest, or searches that take place during an arrest. However, the judges hint at their willingness to consider strengthening electronic privacy. Furthermore, the Court points out that law enforcement agencies and lower courts must begin to appreciate that searching an electronic device is far more intrusive than searching a location or physical container. For corporations, this means greater security for databases, electronic files, and electronic communications. With this ruling, courts and government agencies are more likely to require a warrant before breaching the electronic privacy barrier.

If you would like to understand how this decision may affect your privacy, you may contact us to speak with an attorney about various legal protections.

Published on:

A corporation’s trade secrets are its lifeblood. Indeed, it is through this information that a company generates a profit and maintains its reputation in the industry. A trade secret includes any unique information that carries value. There are both state and federal laws which pertain to trade secrets. Unfortunately, federal laws do not provide strong protections. This has weakened U.S. companies that have fallen victim to international trade secret misappropriation.  In response, since April 2014 the U.S. Senate has been considering the Defend Trade Secrets Act to provide stronger national protection for domestic corporations.  Nonetheless, companies can take steps to establish internal protections for their trade secrets.

A. Trade Secrets Status

A corporation cannot claim a trade secret if it is publicly known information. Most importantly, it must be information that is not available to competitors. For example, the recipe for Coca Cola is a trade secret. In fact, this recipe is arguably the most expensive trade secret in the world. Coca Cola could not claim its recipe as a trade secret if it was readily available to Pepsi.  Any information that a corporation freely provides to customers, trade associations, outside parties, or the general public cannot constitute a trade secret.

B. Confidentiality Agreements

There is a limited exception if a corporation provides access to its trade secrets, but first requires a confidentiality agreement.  It is important for corporations to have a legally-viable confidentiality agreement in place.  These agreements allow access to the trade secret information for purposes of ongoing business.  However, the agreement outlines the terms of access to the information and prohibits any unauthorized distribution.  So, a potential client could have access to a trade secret to discuss future projects, but the client could not discuss these secrets with a competitor or a third party. Anybody, including employees, independent contractors, and potential clients, should be required to sign this type of agreement before gaining access to trade secrets.

C. Steps To Maintain Trade Secret Status

In general, courts will often look to see whether a corporation took reasonable steps to protect the secrecy of its valuable information.  For example, it may be a good idea to include warning labels indicating that any trade secret is protected information.  Such a warning should be clear and highly visible to avoid confusion. Furthermore, physical and electronic protections can help restrict access to protected information.  This includes storing physical copies of trade secrets in a secure location—such as a locked safe with restricted access. Since information is often also stored electronically, corporations must implement network protections to protect their trade secrets. Non-compete agreements can also be very helpful in maintaining trade secrets.  However, based on state law, these agreements may not be enforceable. For example, California requires a very high burden of proof before enforcing non-compete agreements.  The argument is that such agreements prohibit the free-flow of goods and services and restrict economic growth.  Nonetheless, an agreement that is reasonable in time and scope may be enforceable.  It will help ensure that employees who access trade secrets and later leave the company do not immediately turn the information over to a competitor.

At our law firm, we help our corporate clients establish a framework to protect trade secrets. In the event of trade secret misappropriation, or theft, an experienced litigator can help explain the legal remedies.   You may contact us to discuss your legal options.

Published on:

When a person harms another, the harmed party has the option of filing a lawsuit to seek damages. However, certain harms affect large groups of people, sometimes reaching into the thousands. In these cases, state and federal civil procedure rules provide for class action lawsuits. A class action lawsuit is brought by a group of parties who have all suffered a similar harm from a defendant’s actions. The defendants can also make up a class where several defendants contributed to the harms at issue. In 2005, in an effort to provide greater protection for harmed plaintiffs, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) revolutionizing class action procedures.

What Are the Terms of the Class Action Fairness Act?

First, CAFA dramatically expands federal jurisdiction to include a larger body of class action claims. There are two federal class action jurisdiction requirements. First, the case must be for more than $5 million. Second, at least one plaintiff must be from a different state than one defendant. There are exceptions to the second requirement. For example, if at least two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the main defendant, federal courts may not have jurisdiction. By expanding jurisdiction, CAFA changed the class action landscape. In turn, this led to several ambiguities in the case law. This also meant that attorneys skilled in traditional class action procedures had to reinvent their practices to comply with CAFA’s new requirements. The American Bar Association provides resources to demonstrate the applications of CAFA.

How Has the Class Action Fairness Act Affected this Area of Lawsuits?

CAFA helped to reduce forum shopping among state courts. Forum shopping is the practice of filing a lawsuit in a court that is more likely to issue a favorable decision. Certain state courts across the country are notorious for issuing rulings that typically favor either plaintiffs or defendants. This is because certain state laws are more favorable to one party than another. By expanding federal jurisdiction, CAFA has made class actions more uniform because these cases all fall under the same federal law. This way, class actions do not focus in jurisdictions that typically favor plaintiffs. Under CAFA, federal courts also grant greater scrutiny (or a more thorough review of the terms and conditions) to class action settlements.

Critics of this law argue that it provides too much protection to defendants, which are typically large corporations. They argue that since class action suits may now proceed in federal court, it is more difficult to bring such a lawsuit. This also adds to federal courts’ caseload, making class actions take even longer to reach a resolution. However, a study by the Federal Judicial Center did show that since CAFA there has been an increase in class action suits. This is consistent with the legislative intent behind the law—i.e., to make it easier for consumers to bring such suits for their damages. Additionally, since federal judges are appointed, not elected, there is a concern the federal government could manipulate class action outcomes by appointing judges with certain political sentiments. There is also controversy about whether class actions suits appropriately fall under federal court jurisdiction. Opponents argue that instead state laws should decide class action suits.

At our law firm, we help guide our clients from the decision to file a class action lawsuit through the various steps of litigation. You may contact us to discuss your legal options with an attorney.

Published on:

The expansion of cyber consumerism—buying and selling products over the Internet, or engaging in business over the Internet—has called into the question whether international laws are equipped to protect consumers in their online transactions. Indeed, online business often takes place over several countries, implicating the legal standards in those countries. When such transactions involve a party that is more experienced than the other, there is the potential that the experienced party will take advantage of the disparity for financial gain. Accordingly, countries around the world have enacted and adopted legislation to combat the threat of unfair business practices. These provisions aim to protect online transactions to promote successful international business.

What Are Unfair Trading Practices?

Unfair trading practices include fraud, misrepresentations, and unconscionable business acts. Fraud is the act of providing false information in a transaction for personal financial gain at the expense of the other party. Misrepresentation involves providing misleading information about any part of a transaction—for example, the quality of the product in question. Finally, unconscionable acts deal with contract terms or negotiations that are overwhelmingly one-sided. These favor the party with greater bargaining power or business experience. The threat of these practices may arise in all sorts of business contexts—for example, insurance contracts, commercial and residential lease provisions, debt collection efforts, and general purchases.

How Do International Laws Protect Against Unfair Business Practices?

Many countries provide laws to regulate these practices in the business context. Indeed, the European Union (“EU”) requires that each of its member states regulate unfair business practices under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.  Generally, the Directive prohibits aggressive business practices that target specific consumers.  It aims to encourage free trade throughout the EU while providing strict protections for consumers. Also, by implementing a uniform set of laws across the EU, the Directive aims to make it easier to conduct business across the several member states.  The harmony of laws also ensures that consumers in one country do not enjoy more or less protection than consumers in another country.  This further helps stimulate business throughout the EU rather than concentrating it where laws are most favorable to businesses. Individual travelers can also take steps to protect themselves in their international business transactions.  First, it is important to remember that standards are different for different countries.  Therefore, it is helpful to consult an attorney who can explain provisions that will apply to your business transactions.  Travelers who connect to Internet networks abroad and conduct transactions should also take care to protect their financial information and electronic devices.  The Federal Communications Commission recommends that travelers back up their electronic files, remove personal identification information from devices, and make sure that all antivirus software is up to date and running properly.  It is also important to be careful when joining Internet networks abroad—for example, in a hotel, coffee shop, or business center.  Sending electronic communications or using credit card information over these networks can expose users to cyber attacks.

At our law firm, we help inform guide our clients through international business transactions.  Our knowledge of standards against unfair business practices in various countries will help you conduct international business successfully.  You may contact us to discuss applicable laws with an attorney.

Published on:

The European community has been making great strides to establish and protect individual privacy in the globalized cyber community. On May 13, 2014, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued a decision that European Union (“EU”) citizens had a right to ask search engines to remove search results about themselves.  The ECJ defined this as a “right to be forgotten.”  Google, which is upset about this holding, has set up a form for users to request information removal. American counterparts, and officials within Google, have expressed concern about the implications of this ruling—both for the search engine and the threat to the flow of information.  Ultimately, the ECJ has established that the right to privacy supersedes the right to information.

What Are the Terms of the 2014 Ruling?

In issuing the decision, the ECJ was enforcing a 1995 EU directive on privacy that defines and regulates search engines as data collectors. European regulators have historically been more concerned with personal privacy than the United States. Accordingly, European government agencies have taken greater steps to enforce protections. Both the EU and members states have adopted provisions to protect privacy and family life. For instance, in 2010, the European Commission declared the right to be forgotten as a foundational aspect of its Data Protection Regulation.

In this case, the ECJ ruling only applies to personal information over the Internet. So, for example, businesses could not request a removal of poor reviews. A valid request must include photo identification (e.g., driver’s license) and explain why the subject information is “irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise inappropriate.” If Google does take down any information, it will post a notice indicating the request. Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google, explained that this ruling poses a “collision between a ‘right to be forgotten’ and a right to know.” Mr. Schmidt went on to say that Europe’s highest court reached a decision that did not strike a proper balance between these two. Larry Page, Google’s chief executive officer, added that the decision would empower governments looking to restrict online access and information. The right to be forgotten standard would serve as a new tool for governments to implement censorship.

Is There A “Right To Be Forgotten” Under U.S. Laws?

The ECJ ruling is only binding on countries that are members of the European Union.   The member states are responsible for instituting measures to implement ECJ decisions within their own borders. Abiding by ECJ decisions is a condition of continued membership in the EU. In the United States, people can also submit requests to Google to remove information about themselves. However, in America, Google is under no obligation to remove any information it considers to be in the public interest.  Indeed, the ECJ decision highlights the fundamentally different approaches to cyber privacy in America and in Europe.  In America, government regulation and search engine freedom focus on the right to know as more valuable than the right to privacy.  For example, the First Amendment protects the right to know. Then, individuals and entities can take legal action under tort laws for defamation and invasion of privacy as remedies if they are harmed by incorrect or harmful information.

At our law firm, we help inform our clients about international cyber security and privacy rights.  You may contact us to discuss with an attorney how this recent ruling will affect your privacy rights.

Published on:

Early in 2012, the European Commission proposed a reformation of the European Union’s data protection rules.  The European Commission sought to strengthen online privacy rights and improve Europe’s digital economy. The European Commission pointed to expansive globalization and different levels of implementation by the EU’s 27 member states as reasons to seek uniform online privacy rights. Indeed, each member state has different standards of enforcement for the rules. This leads to expensive administrative costs in maintaining and continuing to implement the different standards. The European Commission predicated that a uniform law across the European Union would lead to savings of approximately 2.3 billion Euros a year. In addition, with a clearer set of regulations to govern data protection, the European Commission hoped to instill more confidence in consumers in online services, leading to a growth in jobs and innovations.

What Were the Terms of the 1995 Data Protection Directive?

The 1995 Data Protection Directive was adopted to regulate the processing of personal data among European Union member states. This Directive has a broad definition for “personal data,” including “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.” Also, the standards within the Directive apply only if the entity controlling personal data is established within the European Union or uses equipment located therein. The standards prohibit the processing of personal data without transparency of purpose, a legitimate purpose, and proportionality. In terms of the requirement for proportionality, a controller can process personal data only to an extent necessary to its purpose—it cannot store that data for a potential future purpose.  However, the 1995 Directive fails to take into account the implications of social networks and cloud computing on online privacy.

What Are the Terms of the New Data Protection Regulations?

The new regulations will extend to include all companies that process EU residents’ data, including those companies that operate from any EU member states or elsewhere. Failure to comply with the strict standards can lead to penalties of up to 2% of the company’s worldwide profits. Amendments to the original version have increased this penalty to 5%. The European Commission defines “personal data” as “anything from a name, photo, email address, bank details, social networking website posts, medical information, or a computer’s IP address.”  This is a much more specific definition.  Companies must seek express, valid consent before they can collect personal data.  When dealing with children under the age of 13, a child’s parent or guardian must give consent. In March 2014, the EU also adopted a new amendment—the Right to Erasure.  This provides consumers the right to ask data providers to erase their personal data from their records. However, the consumer will need to demonstrate a substantial need for the erasure.  For example, that the content is unlawful or that the subject’s rights outweigh the right to freedom of information. The proposed regulation was released on January 25, 2012, and several amendments have been proposed since. The European Commission hopes to adopt a final version by late 2014. The regulations will then be in effect after a two-year transition period. This time will allow companies and individuals to take steps to abide by the new rules.

At our law firm, we help inform our clients about both domestic and international internet and privacy regulations. You may contact us to discuss with an attorney how the new standards may affect your rights.

Published on:

Employees, in the course of their employment, will often have broad access to company files.  If employees are terminated or seek other employment, such access can become problematic.  Indeed, companies store sensitive and commercially valuable information on their servers. Employee misuse of these files can substantially weaken a company’s economic viability and threaten its progress.  In a recent court decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that a former employee who accessed an employer’s servers using his login information was not liable for unlawful hacking. The court explained that the employee had not violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) or the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”).

What is the holding in Enki Corporation v. Freedman?

According to the record, Enki Corporation had entered into a contract with Zuora to provide certain consulting and information technology services. As part of these services, Enki installed a computer resource and performance monitor on Zuora’s network. Additionally, Enki contracted with Keith Freedman, a former employee, to provide consulting services for Zuora. Enki subsequently terminated its contract with Freedman when it discovered that Freedman was speaking negatively about Enki’s services. Freedman had also accessed the monitor Enki installed on Zuora’s network using his employee login to download Enki’s proprietary information (e.g., private company files and data) from the servers. The court held that this did not violate the CFAA because Enki had failed to show that Freedman accessed the computer system without authorization. Since the CFAA is aimed at regulated access to protected data, not the misuse of such data, where employers lawfully access servers, there is no CFAA violation. As for the CDAFA claims, the court also did not find a violation because Freedman did not have to “hack” into the system because he did not have to override a computer code. He simply logged in using his employee login information.

What do the CFAA and CDAFA establish?

Congress enacted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as an amendment to expand the scope of computer fraud law, codified under 18 U.S.C. section 1030. Under the CFAA, access to a computer, “without authorization or exceeding authorized access” is a criminal offense.  The California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, codified under Penal Code section 502, protects against “tampering, interference, damage, and unauthorized access to lawfully created computer data and computer systems.” Major violations of CDAFA may lead to fines of up to $10,000 and three years in prison. Both of these statutes allow employers to seek legal remedies against employees who misappropriate company information. However, the district court’s decision in Enki Corporation v. Freedman now shows that employees actually enjoy a higher degree of protection.

At our law firm, we help inform businesses and individuals about the various laws and regulations that apply to information technology frameworks and authorized access.  Whether you are an employee or an employer, you may contact us to discuss with an attorney how the legal standards discussed above affect you.

Published on:

Gambling has been an entertaining pastime in casinos for several years. The expansion of the Internet now makes it possible to play casino games online. However, this raises the question of whether online gambling is a legal activity. While federal law criminalizes “betting or wagering” over “a wire communication,” courts have interpreted this differently than the Department of Justice.

What Laws Apply To Online Gambling?

The federal government regulates online gambling activity.  There are several laws that apply to betting and gambling over the Internet. Most importantly, the Federal Wire Act of 1961, does not allow businesses to engage in certain online betting activity in the United States. It is important to note that federal laws can only regulate online gambling activity that takes place in the United States. They do not have the authority to regulate online gambling that takes place entirely in other jurisdictions. Among other laws, Congress also enacted the Illegal Gambling Business Act of 1970, as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. This Act was meant to target large-scale illegal gambling operations that funded organized crime.

Is Online Gambling Illegal?

In a 2002 case, In re MasterCard International, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Wire Act only applies to Internet sports gambling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana’s finding that the “plain language” of the Wire Act does not prohibit “Internet gambling on a game of chance.” Federal courts have continued to interpret the Wire Act as limited to only “sporting events or contents” and not all online gambling. Accordingly, these holdings establish that federal law does not make Internet lotteries and casinos illegal. However, the Department of Justice continues to maintain that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of online gambling, not just sports gambling.  Therefore, there is not enough clarity in the interpretation of federal laws to establish whether online gambling is entirely illegal.

What Are The Legal Consequences for Participating in Illegal Online Gambling?

Most often, illegal online gambling is a criminal, and not a civil, offense. While this ensures stricter court proceedings for criminal defendants, it may also lead to consequences that are more serious. Since online gambling may involve parties from different jurisdictions, governments may only impose penalties for online gambling that occurs within their own borders. However, legislators have enacted statutes to stop American residents from participating in online gambling. For example, federal law makes it illegal to place bets over the Internet from within U.S. jurisdictions. Additionally, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, makes it illegal to accept funds for online gambling in violation of federal or state laws. This federal statute also requires financial institutions to identify and deny transfers for unlawful online gambling. The aim of this federal law is to identify and stop the institutions that run online gambling, not simply to find and penalize those who participate on these sites.

At our law firm, we help inform businesses and individuals about the various federal laws that apply to online activities and transactions. You may contact us to discuss with an attorney how the online gambling guidelines apply to you.