Business Email Compromise (BEC) is a sophisticated cybercrime that targets businesses and individuals performing legitimate transfer-of-funds requests. Attackers employ tactics such as email spoofing, phishing, and social engineering to impersonate trusted entities—like executives, vendors, or legal representatives—to deceive victims into transferring money or sensitive information.
There has been a significant amount of litigation related to biometric privacy in recent years. The following cases reflect the evolving landscape of biometric privacy litigation in California, highlighting the challenges and considerations in applying biometric privacy laws across different jurisdictions.
1. Clark v. Yodlee, Inc. (2024)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Boone, et al. v. Snap, Inc. is a significant case concerning biometric privacy and the application of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) to social media platforms. The lawsuit alleges that Snap, Inc., which is the parent company of Snapchat, unlawfully collected, stored, and used biometric data without obtaining user consent, violating BIPA. This case is part of a broader trend of increasing litigation against tech companies over biometric data privacy concerns. This report provides an in-depth case analysis such as its background, legal arguments, court proceedings, and potential legal implications.
The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is a landmark Illinois law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric data. Enacted in 2008, BIPA provides some of the most stringent protections for biometric privacy in the United States. With the increasing use of biometric technology—such as fingerprint scanning, facial recognition, and retina scans—lawsuits under BIPA have surged, leading to significant rulings in both state and federal courts. This article explores the key rules and regulations of BIPA, recent court cases, and the broader implications of biometric data privacy enforcement.
An artificial intelligence (AI) company can be sued for product liability, privacy violations, or security failures under various legal theories. However, the viability of a lawsuit depends on the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the AI system, how it was used, and whether any damages resulted from its malfunction or deficiencies.
1. Product Liability for AI Malfunctions
Can AI be Considered a “Product”?
ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7 (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 603, is a California appellate court decision that clarifies the legal standard a plaintiff must meet to unmask anonymous online defendants. The case underscores the balance courts must strike between protecting free speech rights under the First Amendment and allowing plaintiffs to pursue legitimate legal claims against unknown individuals.
Case Background
– ZL Technologies, Inc. (“ZL”), a software company, filed a lawsuit against anonymous defendants (“Does 1-7”) for defamation and trade libel.
It is a well-known fact that operating an online business necessitates adherence to a complex array of state, federal, and international regulations. Below is an overview of key regulatory areas to consider:
1. State Regulations
California:
Blockchain and cryptocurrency rules and regulations vary widely across jurisdictions with some countries embracing digital assets and others imposing strict restrictions. The following article includes an overview of the current legal landscape in the United States, European Union, China, and other key jurisdictions.
United States
1. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Regulations
Creating a digital currency involves complying with a complex framework of state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the securities laws, anti-money laundering (“AML”) rules, and financial licensing requirements. Here’s an overview of the key legal considerations:
1. Federal Regulations for Creating a Digital Currency
For your information, several federal agencies oversee different aspects of digital currencies, depending on their structure and use.
A government agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) cannot wiretap a private citizen’s phone without probable cause or legal authority since it would violate constitutional and statutory protections. Wiretapping without lawful authority is illegal and can lead to significant consequences for law enforcement officials who overstep their bounds.
1. Fourth Amendment Protections
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, including, but not limited to, electronic surveillance. This means:
