When Data Scraping and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Collide

When Data Scraping and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Collide

By Linda Henry


See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below

View Patrick Law Group, LLC

As the volume of data available on the internet continues to increase at an extraordinary pace, it is no surprise that many companies are eager to harvest publicly available data for their own use and monetization.  Data scraping has come a long way since its early days, which involved manually copying data visible on a website.  Today, data scraping is a thriving industry, and high-performance web scraping tools are fueling the big data revolution.  Like many technological advances though, the law has not kept up with the technology that enables scraping. As a result, the state of the law on data scraping remains in flux.

The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is one statute frequently used by companies who seek to stop third-parties from harvesting data.  The CFAA imposes liability on anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains … information from any protected computer.”  The Supreme Court has held that the CFAA “provides two ways of committing the crime of improperly accessing a protected computer: (1) obtaining access without authorization; and (2) obtaining access with authorization but then using that access improperly.” (Musacchio v. United States).

The CFAA’s applicability to data scraping is not clear though, as it was originally intended as an anti-hacking statue, and scraping typically involves accessing publicly available data on a public website.  In order to meet the CFAA’s requirement that a third party engage in unauthorized or improper access of a website, companies often argue that use of a website in violation of the applicable terms of use (e.g., by harvesting data), constitutes unauthorized access in violation of the CFAA.

Over the past year, a handful of cases in California challenging the legality of web scraping offer a few clues as to how courts may approach future challenges to web scraping using the CFAA.   In one of the most high-profile cases involving data scraping during 2017 (HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.), a U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requested by HiQ Labs, a small workforce analytics startup, and ordered LinkedIn to remove technology that would prevent hiQ Labs from accessing information on public profiles.  LinkedIn argued that hiQ Labs was violating LinkedIn’s terms of use as both a user and an advertiser by using bots to scrape data from LinkedIn users’ public profiles.   hiQ Labs rejected LinkedIn’s argument that the CFAA applied, and maintained that because social media platforms should be treated as a public forum, hiQ Labs’s data scraping activities are protected by the First Amendment.

In hiQ, U.S. District Court Judge Chen found, in part, that because authorization is not necessary to access publicly available profile pages, LinkedIn was not likely to prevail on its CFAA claim even if hiQ Labs had violated the terms of use.  Judge Chen did note that LinkedIn’s construction of the CFAA was not without basis, because “visiting a website accesses the host computer in one literal sense, and where authorization has been revoked by the website host, that “access” can be said to be “without authorization.  However, whether access to a publicly viewable site may be deemed “without authorization” under the CFAA where the website host purports to revoke permission is not free from ambiguity.”

Judge Chen reasoned that LinkedIn’s interpretation of the CFAA would allow a company to revoke authorization to a publicly available website at any time and for any reason, and then invoke the CFAA for enforcement, exposing an individual to both criminal and civil liability.  He characterized the possibility of criminalizing the act of viewing of a public website in violation of an order from a private entity as “effectuating the digital equivalence of Medusa.”

While LinkedIn waits for the Ninth Circuit to hear oral arguments in hiQ, yet another company (3taps Inc.) has filed a similar suit against LinkedIn, seeking a declaratory judgement that 3taps is not violating the CFAA and thus should be permitted to continue to extract data on public LinkedIn profile pages. (3taps Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.).  In addition, because 3taps successfully argued that the court should deem the 3taps and hiQ matters related and heard by the same judge, on February 22, 2018, Judge Chen ordered the reassignment of the 3taps case from the Northern District of California’s San Jose court to Judge Chen’s court in San Francisco.

In addition to hiQ, the recent dismissal of a CFAA claim brought by Ticketmaster against a company engaged in data scraping further calls into question whether companies will be successful in using the CFAA to stop web scraping. (Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige Entertainment, Inc.).  In January 2018, a California district court dismissed Ticketmaster’s CFAA claim with leave to amend against a ticket broker that used bots to purchase tickets in bulk from the Ticketmaster site.  The court noted that although Ticketmaster outlined the defendants’ terms of use violations in a cease and desist letter, Ticketmaster did not actually revoke access authority and implied that defendants could continue to use Ticketmaster’s website as long as the defendants abided by the terms of use. In addition, the court maintained that Ticketmaster could not base a CFAA claim on an argument that the defendants exceeded authorized access unless Ticketmaster could demonstrate that the defendants were inside hackers who accessed unauthorized information.

hiQ, 3taps and Ticketmaster demonstrate the inherent difficulty in trying apply a statute that pre-dates the internet age to modern technology.  Although courts have not been consistent in their opinion as to whether violation of a company’s terms of use constitutes unauthorized or improper access under the CFAA, Ticketmaster and hiQ offer data scrapers hope that courts will continue to question whether the CFAA should prohibit harvesting publicly available data.  Companies who utilize data scraping should, however, consider that a court would be more likely to impose liability under the CFAA if the data collected is not publicly available or the methods used to obtain the data can more clearly be characterized as unauthorized access.  The Ninth Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments in hiQ in March, and the court’s interpretation of the CFAA is likely to have a significant impact on the use of automated processes to use third-party data.

OTHER THOUGHT LEADERSHIP POSTS:

IoT Device Companies: The FTC is Monitoring Your COPPA Data Deletion Duties and More

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) activities with respect to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) demonstrate a continued interest in, and increased scrutiny of,...

Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing: Are We Automating Bias?

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Although algorithms are often presumed to be objective and unbiased, recent investigations into algorithms used in the criminal justice system to predict recidivism have produced compelling...

My Car Made Me Do It: Tales from a Telematics Trial

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recently, my automobile insurance company gauged my interest in saving up to 20% on insurance premiums.  The catch?  For three months, I would be required to install a plug-in monitor that...

When Data Scraping and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Collide

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below As the volume of data available on the internet continues to increase at an extraordinary pace, it is no surprise that many companies are eager to harvest publicly available data for their own use...

Is Your Bug Bounty Program Uber Risky?

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In October 2016, Uber discovered that the personal contact information of some 57 million Uber customers and drivers, as well as the driver’s license numbers of over 600,000 United States...

IoT Device Companies: COPPA Lessons Learned from VTech’s FTC Settlement

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In “IoT Device Companies:  Add COPPA to Your "To Do" Lists,” I summarized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s June, 2017 guidance that IoT companies selling devices used by children will be...

Beware of the Man-in-the-Middle: Lessons from the FTC’s Lenovo Settlement

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below The Federal Trade Commission’s recent approval of a final settlement with Lenovo (United States) Inc., one of the world’s largest computer manufacturers, offers a reminder that when it comes to...

#TheFTCisWatchingYou: Influencers, Hashtags and Disclosures 2017 Year End Review

Influencer marketing, hashtags and proper disclosures were the hot button topic for the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) in 2017, so let’s take a look at just how the FTC has influenced Social Media Influencer Marketing in 2017. First, following up on the more...

Part III of III | FTC Provides Guidance on Reasonable Data Security Practices

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below This is the third in a series of three articles on the FTC’s Stick with Security blog. Part I and Part II of this series can be found here and here. Over the past 15 years, the Federal Trade...

Apple’s X-Cellent Response to Sen. Franken’s Queries Regarding Facial Recognition Technologies

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recently, I wrote an article outlining the growing body of state legislation designed to address and mitigate emerging privacy concerns over facial recognition technologies.  It now appears that...

Is Your Bug Bounty Program Uber Risky?

Is Your Bug Bounty Program Uber Risky?

By Jennifer Thompson


See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below

View Patrick Law Group, LLC

In October 2016, Uber discovered that the personal contact information of some 57 million Uber customers and drivers, as well as the driver’s license numbers of over 600,000 United States Uber drivers had been hacked.  Uber, like many companies, leveraged a vulnerability disclosure or “bug bounty” program that invited hackers to test Uber’s systems for certain vulnerabilities, and offered financial rewards for qualifying vulnerabilities.  In fact, Uber has paid out over $1,000,000 pursuant to its program, which is administered through HackerOne, a third-party vendor.  Uber initially identified the breach as an authorized vulnerability disclosure, paid the hackers $100,000, and the hackers deleted the records.  Yet, Uber has faced lawsuits, governmental inquiry and much public criticism in connection with this payment.

What did Uber do wrong and how can organizations ensure that their programs are not subject to the same risks?  To answer this question, one must first understand why and how companies create bug bounty programs.

Why Institute a Bug Bounty Program?

Many companies feel it is far better to pay money upfront to identify vulnerabilities before those vulnerabilities turn into public relations and regulatory nightmares that not only drain manpower and financial resources, but also may result in litigation and increased governmental oversight.  In addition, advance knowledge of a vulnerability allows a company to develop the right solution for the problem, rather than reacting hastily in the pressure-filled post-breach environment.  A properly structured bug bounty program also can be a great way to test the viability of a new concept, product or platform.  It should be noted that the payments made pursuant to bug bounty programs are rewards and NOT ransoms.  The difference is the collaboration and structure of permission-based interactions.

Hackers may be motivated for a number of reasons, including financial gain, intellectual challenge and the personal prestige to be gained from discoveries.  Most of all, by participating in a sanctioned bug bounty program, hackers are able to do what they love without fear of legal repercussion.  The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits the unauthorized entry into a “protected computer” for purposes of obtaining information from it.  Put simply, any individual who hacks a system could be criminally prosecuted.  However, when a company sanctions and even invites the activity, as is the case with a bug bounty program, a hacker can be reasonably certain that it will not be prosecuted, provided that it complies with the program’s requirements.

Having made the decision to launch a bug bounty program, a company must then decide whether to create an ad hoc program, or to engage a third-party service provider to run the program.  Going it alone requires a dedicated team of employees that not only understand the bug bounty program and the technology or functionality being tested, but also are qualified to evaluate any discovered vulnerabilities and issue resulting compensation. Alternatively, outsourcing can provide some comfort, not to mention the expertise of a vendor who can scale the program as needed.  Essentially, the vendor acts as an intermediary to help the client formulate goals for its use of the program, communicate with hackers, evaluate the identified vulnerabilities and administer payment of the bounties.  Bug bounty vendors offer a measure of safety to all parties, not just in terms of bug bounty program reliability, but also in ensuring increased accuracy and quality of the hackers.

Components of a Bug Bounty Program

In June 2017, the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Cybersecurity Unit (the “CU”) provided written guidance for companies seeking to implement a vulnerability disclosure program.  Presented as more of a list of considerations, as opposed to a list of requirements, the CU specifically recognizes that each company’s program must be driven by its unique business purposes and needs.  Nevertheless, the CU suggests that a good program will be:

  • Appropriately designed with a clear scope – The CU suggested that when developing the program, a company must designate both the components and/or data and the types of vulnerabilities or methods of attack it wants hackers to test.  The CU does include factors to consider when the company’s program targets protections of sensitive information, which include detailing restrictions on and handling requirements for sensitive data (such as prohibitions on saving, storing or transferring such sensitive data) and detailing what methods hackers can use to find vulnerabilities.  Lastly, the company should consider whether any of the vulnerabilities it is testing impact interests of third party business vendors or partners; if so, the company should obtain authorization from such third parties to proceed with the program.
  • Properly administered – Once a company has clearly outlined the scope of the program, it must include guidance as to how the program works.  Companies should include clearly stated points of contact, preferably nonpersonal email accounts that are regularly monitored.  A company will want to be able to reproduce or corroborate any identified vulnerability, and the CU suggests that while a company is free to set the rules as to documentation format, it should be mindful that if hackers are prevented from saving certain data, it may have to be willing to accept written descriptions.  Timing should also be addressed – some companies require a prompt disclosure, while some have a long-term deadline and others create short-term challenges which offer higher payouts for the more bugs identified in a defined time period.  Lastly, the company should determine its overall budget for the program and advertise the levels of bounties offered and the attendant requirements to attain each level of reward.
  • Accompanied by a stated vulnerability disclosure policy – The policy should clearly state the scope and administrative requirements of the bug bounty program.  The critical component here is having the policy publicized and accessible to potential participants.  In addition, the company should state the consequences for hackers that operate outside the parameters of the program.  While laws are a bit vague on this point, companies often promise not to prosecute if hackers fully comply with all elements of the program.  Lastly, the policy should provide a company contact to whom hackers can direct questions and receive guidance on program rules.

Conclusion

Once a bug bounty program is created and publicized, a company must hold itself to as strict a compliance standard as it applies to its hacker participants.  What challenged Uber was that it paid a drastically larger amount (ten times the highest advertised reward amount pursuant to the program) for just one breach, thereby circumventing its own publicized and authorized program.  Not only did the amount exceed the limits of its stated program, but Uber negotiated with the hacker, which appeared as extortion-like behavior.  In addition, officials at Uber were aware that this situation unfolded differently than the typical bug bounty interaction.  Rather than notify Uber of the potential vulnerability, the hacker downloaded the sensitive information, then contacted Uber to request payment.  At that point, Uber should have notified law enforcement.  Not only did Uber fail to contact authorities, it waited more than a year to notify the public or authorities about the breach.

Whether a company runs its own program or enlists the aid of a service such as HackerOne, it would be well-advised to ensure compliance with the terms of the program.    Furthermore, it must make certain that all relevant business and legal leaders at the organization are aware of the identified vulnerability, particularly if it is a significant one or involves sensitive information.  Only by involving all stakeholders in the discussion can the organization ensure that its program does not run afoul of relevant legal and other guidelines and requirements.

OTHER THOUGHT LEADERSHIP POSTS:

IoT Device Companies: The FTC is Monitoring Your COPPA Data Deletion Duties and More

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) activities with respect to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) demonstrate a continued interest in, and increased scrutiny of,...

Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing: Are We Automating Bias?

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Although algorithms are often presumed to be objective and unbiased, recent investigations into algorithms used in the criminal justice system to predict recidivism have produced compelling...

My Car Made Me Do It: Tales from a Telematics Trial

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recently, my automobile insurance company gauged my interest in saving up to 20% on insurance premiums.  The catch?  For three months, I would be required to install a plug-in monitor that...

When Data Scraping and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Collide

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below As the volume of data available on the internet continues to increase at an extraordinary pace, it is no surprise that many companies are eager to harvest publicly available data for their own use...

Is Your Bug Bounty Program Uber Risky?

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In October 2016, Uber discovered that the personal contact information of some 57 million Uber customers and drivers, as well as the driver’s license numbers of over 600,000 United States...

IoT Device Companies: COPPA Lessons Learned from VTech’s FTC Settlement

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In “IoT Device Companies:  Add COPPA to Your "To Do" Lists,” I summarized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s June, 2017 guidance that IoT companies selling devices used by children will be...

Beware of the Man-in-the-Middle: Lessons from the FTC’s Lenovo Settlement

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below The Federal Trade Commission’s recent approval of a final settlement with Lenovo (United States) Inc., one of the world’s largest computer manufacturers, offers a reminder that when it comes to...

#TheFTCisWatchingYou: Influencers, Hashtags and Disclosures 2017 Year End Review

Influencer marketing, hashtags and proper disclosures were the hot button topic for the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) in 2017, so let’s take a look at just how the FTC has influenced Social Media Influencer Marketing in 2017. First, following up on the more...

Part III of III | FTC Provides Guidance on Reasonable Data Security Practices

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below This is the third in a series of three articles on the FTC’s Stick with Security blog. Part I and Part II of this series can be found here and here. Over the past 15 years, the Federal Trade...

Apple’s X-Cellent Response to Sen. Franken’s Queries Regarding Facial Recognition Technologies

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recently, I wrote an article outlining the growing body of state legislation designed to address and mitigate emerging privacy concerns over facial recognition technologies.  It now appears that...

Lizz Patrick Participates in the Bizwomen’s Mentoring Monday Event

Lizz Patrick Participates in the Bizwomen’s Mentoring Monday Event

On February 12th Lizz Patrick was honored to participate in American City Business Journal Bizwomen’s Mentoring Monday. This speed coaching and networking event connected thousands of professionals in 40 cities across the country, including Atlanta.

More information on this event can be found here.

IoT Device Companies: COPPA Lessons Learned from VTech’s FTC Settlement

IoT Device Companies: COPPA Lessons Learned from VTech’s FTC Settlement

By Jennifer Thompson


See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below

View Patrick Law Group, LLC

In “IoT Device Companies:  Add COPPA to Your “To Do” Lists,” I summarized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s June, 2017 guidance that IoT companies selling devices used by children will be subject to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and may face increased scrutiny from the FTC with respect to their data collection practices.  That warning became a harsh reality for VTech Electronics Limited (VTech), which recently entered into a settlement with the FTC to, among other things, pay $650,000 for alleged violations of COPPA and the FTC Act.

The Department of Justice, on behalf of the FTC, filed a complaint against VTech alleging that the Kid Connect application embedded in a variety of online platforms and portable devices distributed by VTech collected personal information from hundreds of thousands of children, without providing the requisite direct notice of VTech’s information practices to parents; and without obtaining verifiable consent to the collection of the information from parents, both as required by COPPA.  In addition, the FTC stated that VTech’s data security measures to protect the information it had collected were neither reasonable, nor appropriate to satisfy the requirements of COPPA.  The complaint further alleged deceptive practices by VTech in connection with statements in its privacy policy relating to whether VTech encrypted collected data.

COPPA

COPPA requires that any company which collects personal information online from children under the age of 13 must: 1) have a privacy policy which clearly and completely discloses to parents what information is collected, how the collected information will be used and what the parent’s rights are with respect to modifying or deleting the information; 2) obtain verifiable consent from the parent to the collection and intended use; and 3) take reasonable measures to protect the security and confidentiality of the obtained information.  VTech required parents to provide personal information, including the parent’s name and email address, as well as the child’s name, gender and date of birth when signing up for platforms or devices leveraging the Kid Connect application.  However, The FTC found various violations of COPPA in VTech’s practices.  Alleged violations of COPPA are detailed below, along with key takeaways for IoT companies.

Violation: Although VTech had a privacy policy in place, it was posted only on certain registration pages, which violated COPPA’s requirement to provide a direct notice of its policies to parents.  The FTC asserted that VTech failed to provide the required direct and clear link to its information practices, because the link to the VTech privacy policy was not posted in each place where children’s information was collected and on the landing screen of the application.

Lesson:  Post frequent and prominent links to the company’s privacy policy in each and every location where the information is collected, as well as on the home/landing page for each service.  Note that information may be collected during initial sign up or subscription, at log in and/or account set up screens and during play or use on platforms devices.

Violation:  The FTC alleged that VTech failed to provide complete notice of its information collection and intended use practices.  COPPA requires organizations, among other things, to post their physical and email address, a full description of the information collected from children, as well as information about the parents’ rights to modify, review and delete their children’s information.   VTech failed to provide a complete description of collection practices and intended uses.

Lesson:  Ensure that privacy policies provide a complete and accurate description of how data is collected and used.  In the VTech case, multiple platforms and devices connecting to the application collected different data elements and provided different functionality.  For example, some devices permitted chatting with authorized contacts and briefly stored recordings of such chats and messages, whereas other platforms simply stored names, addresses and gender.  It is critical that the privacy policy completely explains each and every use.

Violation:  In its complaint, the FTC noted that VTech also failed to have a mechanism in place to verify that the registrant was a parent and not a child, thereby failing to obtain verifiable consent from the parents prior to collecting the information.

Lesson:  IoT companies must use available technology to be reasonably certain that the person providing the consent is, in fact, a parent.  There are a variety of FTC- approved methodologies, including knowledge based questions and facial recognition technologies.  Note that consent should be obtained again if an organization institutes any material change to previously consented to collection or use practices.

Violation:  VTech allegedly failed to implement adequate security measures to protect stored and transmitted information as required by COPPA.  The FTC noted weaknesses in VTech’s overall security program, which included inadequate training of employees as to information security requirements, and lack of penetration testing.  Specifically, the FTC identified VTech’s failure to institute an intrusion prevention or detection system, so that VTech would be apprised of any unauthorized attempted or actual breaches of its network.  In fact, VTech only learned of the intrusion and access to consumer information in November, 2015, from a journalist.  VTech also failed to monitor for or to identify the extraction of the children’s information across the VTech network boundaries.  Finally, VTech stored certain information in a manner that linked that information to a parent’s name and physical address, and failed to encrypt certain pieces of information, both of which could identify a child to a hacker.

Lesson:  Information and data security is a constantly evolving obligation, and it is critical that each company collecting information online stay up to date on current technologies.   The FTC noted that there were available intrusion measures which VTech could have implemented.  In addition, companies should regularly test the effectiveness of their current administrative practices and procedures and ensure that proper training is in place for new and current employees.

FTC Act

In addition to the alleged violations of COPPA, the FTC accused VTech of engaging in deceptive practices in violation of the FTC Act, by implying in its privacy policy that the personal information submitted by the parents would be encrypted.  VTech’s privacy policy stated that, “in most cases” the data provided would be encrypted.  In practice, however, VTech did not encrypt the collected information.

Conclusion

The action brought against VTech is the first such action before the FTC with respect to Internet-connected toys, and may signal a shift in focus by the FTC toward greater scrutiny for IoT device companies marketing to children.  Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen noted that, “As connected toys become increasingly popular, it’s more important than ever that companies let parents know how their kids’ data is collected and used and that they take reasonable steps to secure that data.”  In addition to paying the $650,000 penalty, VTech must create and implement a comprehensive data security program (to be independently audited for 20 years), provide compliance reporting to the FTC and is enjoined from further violations of COPPA or misstatements of its privacy policies in the future.  Now more than ever, it is critical that IoT device companies review their posted policies and practices with respect to all personal information collected from or about children under the age of 13: 1) to ensure that such policies are clear and complete; 2) the parents receive direct and full access to the entirety of the policies; 3) verifiable consent is obtained from the parents; and 4) the companies’ information security measures and policies are adequate to guard against and promptly identify any breaches with respect to collected information.

OTHER THOUGHT LEADERSHIP POSTS:

IoT Device Companies: The FTC is Monitoring Your COPPA Data Deletion Duties and More

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) activities with respect to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) demonstrate a continued interest in, and increased scrutiny of,...

Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing: Are We Automating Bias?

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Although algorithms are often presumed to be objective and unbiased, recent investigations into algorithms used in the criminal justice system to predict recidivism have produced compelling...

My Car Made Me Do It: Tales from a Telematics Trial

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recently, my automobile insurance company gauged my interest in saving up to 20% on insurance premiums.  The catch?  For three months, I would be required to install a plug-in monitor that...

When Data Scraping and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Collide

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below As the volume of data available on the internet continues to increase at an extraordinary pace, it is no surprise that many companies are eager to harvest publicly available data for their own use...

Is Your Bug Bounty Program Uber Risky?

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In October 2016, Uber discovered that the personal contact information of some 57 million Uber customers and drivers, as well as the driver’s license numbers of over 600,000 United States...

IoT Device Companies: COPPA Lessons Learned from VTech’s FTC Settlement

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In “IoT Device Companies:  Add COPPA to Your "To Do" Lists,” I summarized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s June, 2017 guidance that IoT companies selling devices used by children will be...

Beware of the Man-in-the-Middle: Lessons from the FTC’s Lenovo Settlement

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below The Federal Trade Commission’s recent approval of a final settlement with Lenovo (United States) Inc., one of the world’s largest computer manufacturers, offers a reminder that when it comes to...

#TheFTCisWatchingYou: Influencers, Hashtags and Disclosures 2017 Year End Review

Influencer marketing, hashtags and proper disclosures were the hot button topic for the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) in 2017, so let’s take a look at just how the FTC has influenced Social Media Influencer Marketing in 2017. First, following up on the more...

Part III of III | FTC Provides Guidance on Reasonable Data Security Practices

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below This is the third in a series of three articles on the FTC’s Stick with Security blog. Part I and Part II of this series can be found here and here. Over the past 15 years, the Federal Trade...

Apple’s X-Cellent Response to Sen. Franken’s Queries Regarding Facial Recognition Technologies

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recently, I wrote an article outlining the growing body of state legislation designed to address and mitigate emerging privacy concerns over facial recognition technologies.  It now appears that...

Lizz Patrick Honored with the Emily Warren Roebling Force Majeure Award

Lizz Patrick Honored with the Emily Warren Roebling Force Majeure Award

Congratulations to Lizz Patrick who was honored today with the Emily Warren Roebling Force Majeure Award by the ABA Forum on Construction Law for her Distinguished Service.

“The Women’s Committee will be honoring, for the first time, an Unsung Heroine of the Forum. The award is given to a woman who has made outstanding contributions to the Forum and recognizes the honoree for her previously unnoted yet valuable contribution to the Forum. For the inaugural award, come celebrate the contributions of A. Elizabeth (“Lizz”) Patrick.”

The above quote can be found in the ABA Forum Agenda linked here.

Page 2 of 1812345...10...Last »