On August 8, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yet another decision adopting relaxed standing requirements in privacy litigation, this time in a decision permitting a plaintiff to pursue claims under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In Patel v. Facebook, the Ninth Circuit rejected arguments from Facebook Inc. (Facebook) that claims under the BIPA require assertions of real-world harm, and that BIPA claims only apply to conduct within Illinois. The ruling creates a circuit split on the standard for establishing Article III standing in BIPA litigation, which could prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Amendments Proposed To D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct to Address
The District of Columbia Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee (“Committee”) recently released recommended changes to D.C. Bar rules 1.1, 1.6, and 4.4 to address the increased focus and evolving landscape of E-Discovery and technology in law. All D.C. practitioners should take notice of these potential rule changes, and ensure they stay current—or engage those with appropriate expertise—on these quickly changing areas of practice.
The proposed changes are as follows:
Continue Reading Amendments Proposed To D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct to Address
Seventh Circuit Wades into Big Data Case Law
As the country’s new Congress settles into its term, several technology issues are coming to the forefront. A number of Senators recently questioned the Department of Justice over how it is collecting cellphone-location data in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark Carpenter decision. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). The House of Representatives is considering a renewed version of legislation that would strengthen the security of “Internet of Things” technologies used by the federal government. And politicians and pundits throughout Capitol Hill are asking whether this will be the year that comprehensive federal privacy legislation becomes law. As it turns out though, some of the nation’s top courts are already tackling these tough issues. In fact, the Seventh Circuit’s opinion last year in Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v. City of Naperville, 900 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2018), has received relatively little reporting, but its impact will be broad when it comes to how courts interpret the Fourth Amendment in the era of big data.
In Naperville, the Seventh Circuit heard an appeal concerning the city’s “smart meter” program. Without residents’ permission, Naperville had been replacing traditional energy meters on its grid with “smart meters” for homes. Each smart meter collected thousands of readings a month, as opposed to just the previous single monthly readings. According to the plaintiffs, the repeated readings of the smart meters collected data at such a granular level that they revealed what appliances were present in homes and when they were used. Considering the potential privacy impact, the Seventh Circuit found that Naperville’s collection of smart meter data from residents’ homes constituted a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Wades into Big Data Case Law
EDRM’s TAR Guidelines: Validity Measures and Considerations for Practitioners
EDRM and the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law recently released Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines (Guidelines) with the aim “to objectively define and explain technology-assisted review for members of the judiciary and the legal profession.” Among the topics covered are the validation and reliability measures practitioners can use to defend their TAR processes. This post summarizes this validation and reliability guidance, which has the potential to be a widely-referenced authority on this topic going forward.
According to EDRM, there are no “bright-line rules” governing what constitutes a reasonable review or one standard measurement to validate the results of TAR. Instead, principles of reasonableness and proportionality as set forth in FRCP Rule 26 generally guide the inquiry.
Continue Reading EDRM’s TAR Guidelines: Validity Measures and Considerations for Practitioners
For GCs, Tech Can Separate Courtroom Winners And Losers
“In-house attorneys should aggressively deploy the technology that’s all but taken for granted in legal operations to map out litigation strategies, and failing to do so increasingly means losing out to savvier adversaries, according to a report released Wednesday by Crowell & Moring LLP.”
To read the full Law360 article, please click here.
SAFETY ACT LIABILITY PROTECTIONS WILL BE TESTED
After over a decade, the first action has been filed that may test the bounds of the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act (“SAFETY Act”) of 2002. MGM Resorts International recently filed suit related to the October 2017 Mandalay Bay country music concert shooting, asking a federal court to rule that it cannot be
Learn about how Regulation Will Shape Digital Transformation in Crowell & Moring’s 2018 Regulatory Forecast Cover Story: “Digital Transformation: The Sky’s The Limit”
Crowell & Moring has issued its “Regulatory Forecast 2018: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year.”
The Forecast cover story, “Digital Transformation: The Sky’s the Limit,” provides a look at how technology is helping companies soar to new heights and how regulation can help companies to succeed.
Fourth Circuit Raises Bar for DMCA Safe Harbor Defense
Last Thursday, the Fourth Circuit decided a closely followed case on one of the safe harbor defenses under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). See BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., No. 16-1972 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018). The court also addressed the intent standard for contributory copyright infringement.
BMG, an owner of copyrights in digital music files, sued Cox, an internet service provider, for contributory copyright infringement by Cox subscribers engaging in “peer-to-peer” music file sharing. The district court held that Cox was not entitled to the safe harbor defense under Section 512(a) of the DMCA because Cox did not satisfy the conditions under Section 512(i)(1)(A) that it “adopted and reasonably implemented … a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers … who are repeat infringers.” At trial, a jury found Cox liable and awarded BMG $25 million.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Raises Bar for DMCA Safe Harbor Defense
LEARN ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES, RISKS OF BIG DATA IN CROWELL & MORING’S 2018 LITIGATION FORECAST COVER STORY: “DATA, DATA EVERYWHERE”
Crowell & Moring has issued its “Litigation Forecast 2018: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year.”
The Forecast cover story, “Data, Data Everywhere,” takes an in-depth look at the opportunities and challenges general counsel face in navigating the Big Data revolution.
While data is a driver for innovation
Ninth Circuit: Disclosure of video viewing history constitutes harm sufficient to confer standing in federal court
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has joined the Third and Eleventh Circuits in ruling that any disclosure of an individual’s online viewing history along with their personally identifiable information confers standing to bring a suit for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) in federal court. The case, Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,