Published on:

Spam, for those lucky enough to be unfamiliar about it, are those unsolicited commercial emails that often clutter up inboxes with offers of sales and services that range from the reliable to the questionable.  Due to the issues presented to consumers, Congress, in its wisdom, enacted a law called the CAN-SPAM Act, and began enforcing it in 2004. First, what is the CAN-SPAM Act and what does it prohibit?  Second, as a federal law, does the CAN-SPAM Act override, or preempt those laws a state may already have in place?  How can you tell if that may happen?

What is the CAN-SPAM Act?

The CAN-SPAM Act places prohibitions on transmission of any email that contains false or misleading headers or “from” lines.  For example, a business that is not Facebook, and has nothing to do with Facebook, would be prohibited from sending an email with the subject “Your Facebook account has been compromised” or send an email from  In addition, this law places a requirement for three disclosures: (1) clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation; (2) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity to decline to receive further commercial email messages from the sender; and (3) a valid physical postal address of the sender.  This is done, in part, due to the interest of the legislation in helping consumers under the principle that they should not be misled and should have a right to say no to unsolicited commercial emails.

Published on:

As the implementation of the European Union Privacy Shield comes closer, other elements of the shield come into influence and place restrictions on businesses that transfer data between the United States and Europe.  Further adding onto this, is the General Data Protection Regulation.  This can be a major issue in cases where data transfers may occur, but more specifically, it impacts the cloud computing sphere, and services like Dropbox and Google Docs.  So, how do these services work?  What would the General Data Protection Regulation do?  How can they be used with the Privacy Shield in effect?

How do these services work?

Now, these systems work by allocating computing resources to another location.  Usually, this is done through the internet, by transferring data towards other electronic devices or servers.  Effectively, it allows for individuals or businesses to take advantage of greater resources of other entities, like those of Dropbox or Google, by granting use of their services for a fee.  On the flip side, these services could be compromised by hackers, and cause the loss of personal or confidential information.  We have discussed some of the risks associated with cloud computing before and would ultimately encourage our readers to carefully evaluate the risks of submitting any information to the Cloud.

Published on:

In recent years, states have continued to collect tax from e-commerce transactions.  Louisiana has recently joined in on the trend and allowed the state to tax businesses without a physical presence there.  This is a trend that we have discussed in the past and we encourage our readers to catch up on previous posts about online taxes in California and the evolving trends.  However, Louisiana’s new regulations has shutdown Amazon’s affiliate program in the state.  So, what is the history of this bill?  Also, aside from retailers like Amazon, who would this legislation impact?

What is the bill’s history?

The bill fundamentally has its basis in something we’ve covered before where we discussed Quill Corporation v. North Dakota.  This case effectively ruled that without a sufficient connection, i.e., nexus, to the state, that state cannot tax it.  This has been interpreted that to tax the entity, the entity usually must have a physical presence in that state.  This would mean “brick-and-mortar” retailers would be taxable, while an entity like Amazon, which may not have any warehouses or physical presence in the state, would be “immune” to taxation.  In response, some states have taken action in legislating a “lowering” of the nexus standard.  For example, Act No. 22, also under HB-30, in the State of Louisiana was authored by Representatives Leger, Carpenter, and White, and enacted into law by the Governor on March 15, 2016.

Published on:

This one isn’t an April Fools’ prank.  On April 1, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced its proposed rulemaking to create regulation that would bind Broadband Internet Access Service (“BIAS”) providers in the interest of enhancing privacy towards consumers.  This proposal has raised objections from AT&T, Comcast, USTelecom, and the Application Developer’s Alliance, claiming that the ensuing regulations would create a morass of regulation in the privacy sphere.  Yet, the FCC’s regulations are to prohibit the monetization of the information that these providers would have due to the use of their services.  So, what is a BIAS and how could these rules possibly protect privacy?

What is a BIAS provider?

The BIAS providers provide internet service through wire or radio.  The FCC even expands this to any functional equivalents to BIAS providers. Of some note is which entities are not BIAS entities.  For example, companies like Facebook, Apple, and to some extent, Google, would not be bound by the terms here and could use the information that is collected through their services.  This is because none of them actually provide the internet service that their consumers use.  There is some room for Google to be prohibited as it provides internet service in some locations through Google Fiber, but the regulations would only prohibit the information that was gained through the use of its internet services, but not services that it provides towards online consumers.  Thus, Google’s Fiber service would likely be prohibited from using consumer’s personal information, while Google’s YouTube service would not.

Published on:

Trademarks and branding are an important part of any business organization.  They build the organization’s reputation in providing a product or service.  In late January, the Fine Brothers, had made an attempt to begin a new business venture in licensing their trademarks and intellectual property to create a larger media congregation called “React World.”  The brothers had built a business on producing videos showing the reactions of different subsets of the population, from children to the elderly.  In doing so, they would monetize the videos through sponsorship and advertisement.  To ensure their ability to monetize and license their intellectual property, they applied for trademarks for the words “React,” “Kids React,” and other derivatives.  This prompted a backlash by individuals, fearing that the actions by the Fine Brothers would be used to curtail their activities on the web.  The sheer magnitude from this backlash led to the Fine Brothers withdrawing their application from the process and cancelling their plans.

Notwithstanding the public backlash, the Fine Brothers would likely have their application approved and pushed beyond the public contest phase if they had only waited a little while longer.  The public contest phase is exactly where the Fine Brothers managed to fail.  If they had not brought attention to their trademarking efforts, it would have likely passed through the process.

In general, in the trademark application process, after the trademark examiner tentatively approves a mark, there is a 30-day period to file an opposition. This is open to all individuals that may be harmed by the mark, not just those with similar marks.  As such, the public was able to protest the granting of the “React” trademark.  When seeking a trademark application, the sort of public outcry that occurred in response to the “React” trademark should be avoided.  The 30-day period, while it would be available to the public, did not need to be publicized as with the Fine Brothers.  In filing a trademark that may garner some public opposition, there is no need to draw further attention to it.  If the brothers had not withdrawn their application, this type of opposition would have been heard by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and overcome by the Fine Brothers.

Published on:

In recent years, the internet has connected the general public across continents.  Notably, it can be expected that data can easily travel across countries in a blink of an eye, without any delay and on a daily basis.  The transfer of data is an important part in business as well.  With any multinational entity, personal data crossing countries is inevitable.  However, each country may have different guidelines that a business must ensure compliance.

Recently, the European Union announced a new change to its privacy laws.  Formerly, it would allow American, and other businesses, to obtain a “pass” for its privacy laws by certifying themselves as compatible for its safe harbors scheme.  This safe harbor scheme requires a business to meet standards for privacy protection.  However, on October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice ruled that the previous system for allowing corporations to obtain accreditation, and shifting data between the United States and Europe, was improper due to the current intelligence methods in the United States.  This oversight ended the safe harbor provision.

The new rules establish a Privacy Shield register and a free alternative dispute resolution system.  The organizations will have to self certify annually, with verification by the Department of Commerce, and comply with the Privacy Shield framework.  As part of compliance, organizations must provide a response within 45 days and create a no-cost independent recourse system where complaints and disputes will be resolved in a timely manner.  In addition, the European residents will be able to pursue legal action for claims such as, misrepresentation, and the participants must commit to binding arbitration at the European citizen’s request.

Published on:

Trademarks are a vital part of how your business is branded and how you appeal to clients and consumers.  What about those trademarks that push the boundaries on what is socially acceptable?  Generally, the government may not protect those marks that are beyond what is socially acceptable.  What is socially acceptable now?  Can the same standards apply and restrict what you can trademark?  To what extent can you push the boundaries in your branding?

How did the court rule in In Re Tam?

In recent times, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ceded the restrictions on demeaning and offensive marks.  This is in response to the recent “Slants” case, where Simon Tam, a musician, filed a trademark application for his band’s name “The Slants.”  His trademark application was then denied under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.  This section prohibits the use of immoral, deceptive, or scandalous marks that may disparage living or dead people.  This section is infamous for the reason why the Washington Redskins trademark was cancelled.  However, Mr. Tam contested the refusal of his trademark, claiming that he wanted to take back the word “Slants” for his band, resting his argument on the First Amendment.  In doing so, through a long legal battle, the Federal Circuit eventually found for Tam, in an en banc hearing, stating that Section 2(a) violated his First Amendment right.  Furthermore, while the ruling had only applied to the disparaging part of the section, the USPTO ceded that the “scandalous and immoral” aspects of the legislation were likely to be unenforceable for similar reasons.

Published on:

As we discussed in part one of this issue, during the late morning of December 2, 2015, a couple armed with weapons walked into a banquet room filled with people.  At first, the attack was categorized as another mass shooting that ended in a large number of fatalities. As the investigation continued, however, more details emerged surrounding the couple.  The FBI concluded that they were “homegrown violent extremists” that had no connection to foreign terrorist organizations. They were merely inspired by such organizations and committed the attack by their own volition.

During the investigation, the FBI obtained Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters, cell phone. The FBI was attempting to gain access to the information stored on the phone, but the method they employed locked them out. As a result, the FBI asked Apple if they were willing to create a program that would create a backdoor. This backdoor would disable certain security features and allow investigators to access Farook’s phone. Apple, however, refused to do so, citing consumer privacy. The FBI then successfully applied for a court order. The judge ordered Apple to create the software, but Apple filed an opposition. In response to the opposition, the Department of Justice applied its own court order, requesting the judge to require Apple to comply with the first order. The federal judge has yet to rule on the request.

Apple’s Argument

Published on:

On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, walked into a banquet room at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, armed with semi-automatic weapons. At the time, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health was holding a training event and holiday party.  Approximately 75-80 people were in attendance. The couple opened fire, and in a matter of several minutes, killed 14 people and seriously injuring 22 others. The couple left the scene before the police arrived at the crime scene.

Immediately thereafter, law enforcement officials started a search for the couple who left in a black SUV. Based on a tip from one of Farook’s neighbors, officers went to his home and a car chase ensued. The SUV eventually stopped and there was an exchange of gunfire between the couple and officers. The couple was killed in the five-minute exchange.

While investigating the case, investigators found a possible link to a foreign terrorist group thereby ruling it a terrorist attack. However, after FBI investigations, it was concluded the couple were “homegrown violent extremists” inspired by foreign terrorist groups. The investigation stated they were not directed by a particular foreign terrorist group or part of any terrorist cell.

Published on:

Product diversion is when an unauthorized seller sells a product outside of authorized distribution channels. The product goes through various unauthorized channels in order to reach the shelves or listings on a website. This is a common practice with high end and expensive beauty products.

The way these unauthorized retailers and e-commerce sites obtain these products often involves reaching out to an authorized seller of the product. For example, many manufacturers have a contract with various salons to exclusively sell their products. These salons, in turn, sell the products per their contract. However, there are salons that work in the gray market. The ones that are in the gray market enter into deals with a third party that offers to buy the items in bulk. The third party then sells the item to an unauthorized seller. The unauthorized seller then sells the items on websites such as eBay and Amazon.

The danger of diverted products going through these unauthorized channels are high for both the consumer and business. For example, products can be tampered with during the process. Products can change bottles, be diluted, and more. It could cause health problems for those who are sensitive towards certain ingredients. It can also be dangerous to businesses because it will hurt their profits. The businesses will lose their cut of product sales from the authorized seller and can receive negative reviews from the public. For example, if a consumer, who has used Brand X body wash for years, buys the Brand X body wash from an unauthorized reseller because it was cheaper on Amazon than in store and has a severe allergic reaction to it, then he/she may be tempted to post a negative review. The problem is that the blame is not on Brand X, but on whoever tampered with the product before it was sent to the consumer. Although, the blame is on someone else, Brand X will receive the negative review that will discourage other consumers from purchasing its product.