Letting the people in your life know about a divorce is now easier than ever; with the click of a mouse, someone's status on Facebook can go from "married" to "single" and broadcast the break-up to everyone they know. Though the online airing of dirty relationship laundry is nothing new for the younger crowd, demographics are shifting, and even for those in their 40's and beyond, divorces have suddenly become startlingly public.
However, with the dissolution of a marriage so often tied to heated court battles, online social networking sites have also become an increasingly common source of evidence. Divorce attorneys can find a huge amount of relevant information about the opposing side online: mentions of affairs, lavish purchases, or incriminating photographs. In some circumstances, online postings might even be used to show someone as an unfit parent in custody proceedings.
In essence, websites like Facebook can be evidentiary goldmines. One lawyer brought up a case where a mother assured the court that she had quit drinking – only to be caught in a lie when her MySpace page turned up dated photographs of her doing just that. And "cyber sleuths" know just how easy it can be to prove adultery in the digital age.
Though the ethical implications of accessing, for example, "friends-only" information on social networking sites is still under some debate, it is generally understood that information is only legally private when there is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy – which is arguably not the case even with high privacy settings. Not only can your own friends view your page, but anyone that they allow to view it; even Facebook warns in its privacy policy that anything disclosed may potentially become publicly available.
Of course, smart divorce attorneys today know not only how to find incriminating information, but also how to advise their clients to avoid these pitfalls. Maybe when we post information online, the first thing we should be asking is: would I want a judge to read this?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Is There Trouble in Farmville? Lawsuit Alleges Scams in Facebook Games.
Facebook users are likely familiar with the ubiquitous Zynga even if they don't play the company's social games themselves. Reading the "feed" that contains updates from Facebook friends often contains a variety of messages concerning everyone else's gaming activities, keeping everyone in their lives up-to-date on what they're cooking in Cafe World or what they're growing in Farmville.
Zynga's games have become so popular, in fact, that the company has recently been featured in the New York Times, Time, Business Week, and The Economist, leaving some wondering if they are gearing up for going public. But as one analyst pointed out on the subject of potential "scammy offers" in the games, a tarnished brand could do serious damage to that possibility.
So is Zynga's number up? A recent lawsuit filed by a woman in Santa Cruz, California alleges that she lost $200 due to "deceptive ads" on the Facebook games. The plaintiff's attorney says that thousands of others could potentially be part of the class-action suit.
Though the games themselves are free, players can advance to higher levels and get more virtual cash by participating in trial offers or paying a fee. For example, $5 gets you 7,500 "farm coins" in the game Farmville. And the lawsuit's plaintiff claimed that she signed up for a free trial of green tea in exchange for in-game rewards for YoVille – but then ended up with $165 in charges for the products despite canceling the trial.
The suit is seeking over $5 million in compensation for a growing number of potential plaintiffs as the lawyers involved reach out to those who may have been scammed.
Facebook itself had pointed out that the ads in question come from third parties, but still discounted the lawsuit as frivolous. It should also be noted that the allegedly dishonest offers are coming from third parties rather than from Zynga itself; this sort of "free trial" offer is common all over the web. If these offers are scamming players, is Zynga responsible... or are they just being played as well?
Zynga's games have become so popular, in fact, that the company has recently been featured in the New York Times, Time, Business Week, and The Economist, leaving some wondering if they are gearing up for going public. But as one analyst pointed out on the subject of potential "scammy offers" in the games, a tarnished brand could do serious damage to that possibility.
So is Zynga's number up? A recent lawsuit filed by a woman in Santa Cruz, California alleges that she lost $200 due to "deceptive ads" on the Facebook games. The plaintiff's attorney says that thousands of others could potentially be part of the class-action suit.
Though the games themselves are free, players can advance to higher levels and get more virtual cash by participating in trial offers or paying a fee. For example, $5 gets you 7,500 "farm coins" in the game Farmville. And the lawsuit's plaintiff claimed that she signed up for a free trial of green tea in exchange for in-game rewards for YoVille – but then ended up with $165 in charges for the products despite canceling the trial.
The suit is seeking over $5 million in compensation for a growing number of potential plaintiffs as the lawyers involved reach out to those who may have been scammed.
Facebook itself had pointed out that the ads in question come from third parties, but still discounted the lawsuit as frivolous. It should also be noted that the allegedly dishonest offers are coming from third parties rather than from Zynga itself; this sort of "free trial" offer is common all over the web. If these offers are scamming players, is Zynga responsible... or are they just being played as well?
Deceptive Advertising? There's a Lawsuit for That.
Only about a month after a Verizon ad (see video below) first aired during Monday Night Football, AT&T filed a lawsuit claiming that their competitor's not-so-thinly-veiled jabs at AT&T's cellular coverage were misleading to the point of deceptive trade practice.
(video link -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU&feature=player_embedded
The ad parodied the popular "There's an App for That" iPhone commercial by pointing out that if you're wondering why some people have better cell phone coverage than others, "there's a map for that." The ad included images of maps of the United States with highlighted areas denoting 3G ("third generation") network coverage – red for Verizon and blue for AT&T. The vast amount of white space amidst the blue dots was intended to show that AT&T had inferior coverage.
AT&T's complaint was not that the maps were inaccurate, but that they implied that customers would be "out of touch" completely in the blank areas, which is not the case, as their normal cellular service is available even where 3G coverage is not.
However, an Atlanta federal judge apparently disagreed with this assessment, stating that he found no evidence of inaccuracy in the ads, and subsequently denied the request for an injunction that would halt the ads.
The issue here was one of perception, which is always tricky to prove legally - but of course, perception can be everything when it comes to branding, especially during the holiday shopping season. AT&T does have another shot in a hearing set for December 16, but stopping the ads at that point may be too late for any damage done. With Black Friday just a short time ago, Verizon has even rolled out another ad that gets into the holiday spirit – depicting the iPhone as the newest inhabitant of the island of misfit toys, thanks to that same spotty 3G map.
So were consumers really confused by the ad, or is Verizon right in claiming that AT&T is just litigating because "the truth hurts"? Considering the popularity of the iPhone for the past few holiday seasons, the answer might be in both companies' bottom lines come January.
(video link -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU&feature=player_embedded
The ad parodied the popular "There's an App for That" iPhone commercial by pointing out that if you're wondering why some people have better cell phone coverage than others, "there's a map for that." The ad included images of maps of the United States with highlighted areas denoting 3G ("third generation") network coverage – red for Verizon and blue for AT&T. The vast amount of white space amidst the blue dots was intended to show that AT&T had inferior coverage.
AT&T's complaint was not that the maps were inaccurate, but that they implied that customers would be "out of touch" completely in the blank areas, which is not the case, as their normal cellular service is available even where 3G coverage is not.
However, an Atlanta federal judge apparently disagreed with this assessment, stating that he found no evidence of inaccuracy in the ads, and subsequently denied the request for an injunction that would halt the ads.
The issue here was one of perception, which is always tricky to prove legally - but of course, perception can be everything when it comes to branding, especially during the holiday shopping season. AT&T does have another shot in a hearing set for December 16, but stopping the ads at that point may be too late for any damage done. With Black Friday just a short time ago, Verizon has even rolled out another ad that gets into the holiday spirit – depicting the iPhone as the newest inhabitant of the island of misfit toys, thanks to that same spotty 3G map.
So were consumers really confused by the ad, or is Verizon right in claiming that AT&T is just litigating because "the truth hurts"? Considering the popularity of the iPhone for the past few holiday seasons, the answer might be in both companies' bottom lines come January.
Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke
With the growth of online social networks has come a barrage of new ways to communicate with friends – or even enemies. One such method is a feature on the social networking site Facebook called a "poke." Receiving a poke from another Facebook user is both a simplistic and ambiguous message, as it conveys no other information than that it was sent.
However, simplistic or not, this is still a form of communication – which means that it is very likely enough to violate a restraining order. A Tennessee woman recently learned this lesson the hard way when she was arrested for allegedly violating an order of protection when she sent a Facebook poke.
Of course, the order of protection itself is fairly unambiguous, stipulating "no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner." As cyberstalking is becoming an increasingly prominent problem, not only with respect to strangers but also in domestic violence cases, judges are often quick to remind respondents that this includes electronic communication as well – no texts, no emails, and apparently, no pokes.
In Tennessee, violating an order of protection is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the maximum jail sentence is 11 months and 29 days; it also carries a possible fine of up to $2,500.
Did the Tennessee woman in question realize that a "poke" would violate the order of protection? Perhaps this case is a reminder that changing technology can quickly affect legal issues; the number of ways that we are "otherwise communicating" with each other seems to increase every day.
However, simplistic or not, this is still a form of communication – which means that it is very likely enough to violate a restraining order. A Tennessee woman recently learned this lesson the hard way when she was arrested for allegedly violating an order of protection when she sent a Facebook poke.
Of course, the order of protection itself is fairly unambiguous, stipulating "no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner." As cyberstalking is becoming an increasingly prominent problem, not only with respect to strangers but also in domestic violence cases, judges are often quick to remind respondents that this includes electronic communication as well – no texts, no emails, and apparently, no pokes.
In Tennessee, violating an order of protection is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the maximum jail sentence is 11 months and 29 days; it also carries a possible fine of up to $2,500.
Did the Tennessee woman in question realize that a "poke" would violate the order of protection? Perhaps this case is a reminder that changing technology can quickly affect legal issues; the number of ways that we are "otherwise communicating" with each other seems to increase every day.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Accused Mugger Exonerated by Facebook Alibi
When 19-year-old Rodney Bradford was arrested for a mugging at gunpoint in Brooklyn, he claimed that he was innocent – that he couldn’t have committed the crime, because at 11:50 a.m. when the robbery occurred he was at his father’s home in Harlem. Whereas the statements of his family may not have been as convincing, there was one witness to his alibi that the prosecutors found compelling: Facebook.
Bradford posted a status update on the social networking site at 11:49 a.m. When his lawyer brought this to the district attorney’s attention, Facebook was subpoenaed to verify that the update had indeed been sent from Harlem. Thus, what otherwise would have been just one of a number of seemingly unimportant updates became something critical – an alibi.
Though social networking activity has been included as evidence in criminal cases (for example, the burglar who logged onto Facebook on his victim’s computer), lawyers say that this seems to be the first instance of a Facebook message serving as an alibi. However, with use of the site becoming increasingly prevalent, this sort of legal issue use may be more common in the future.
It is of course conceivable that an Internet user could falsify whereabouts using a social networking site. The simplest way would be to give someone else one’s username and password to post an update from elsewhere. Whereas investigators can verify where an update comes from, verifying who was actually at the computer is a much more difficult problem.
So how much should law enforcement and prosecutors be weighing this type of evidence? With a society of increasingly sophisticated Internet users, technology is showing up more and more in the courtroom – but this means that it could possibly be misused as well.
Bradford posted a status update on the social networking site at 11:49 a.m. When his lawyer brought this to the district attorney’s attention, Facebook was subpoenaed to verify that the update had indeed been sent from Harlem. Thus, what otherwise would have been just one of a number of seemingly unimportant updates became something critical – an alibi.
Though social networking activity has been included as evidence in criminal cases (for example, the burglar who logged onto Facebook on his victim’s computer), lawyers say that this seems to be the first instance of a Facebook message serving as an alibi. However, with use of the site becoming increasingly prevalent, this sort of legal issue use may be more common in the future.
It is of course conceivable that an Internet user could falsify whereabouts using a social networking site. The simplest way would be to give someone else one’s username and password to post an update from elsewhere. Whereas investigators can verify where an update comes from, verifying who was actually at the computer is a much more difficult problem.
So how much should law enforcement and prosecutors be weighing this type of evidence? With a society of increasingly sophisticated Internet users, technology is showing up more and more in the courtroom – but this means that it could possibly be misused as well.
Net Neutrality: Does the Internet Need Saving?
This blog, like millions of other types of content on the Internet, is not provided by a large corporation. However, the speed of your connection is likely the same as when you surf over to a big corporate website. This is because in the United States there is generally network neutrality – meaning that Internet providers such as AT&T or Comcast don’t decide which websites go faster or slower. Some broadband companies have proposed changing this by charging content providers extra in return for their content having access to the fast lane in the information superhighway.
For the past five years or so there has been a lot of lobbying to Congress on both sides of the issue. Advocates of network neutrality want the government to step in and make rules against Internet providers implementing such changes. The issue is becoming more in the public eye as well, as organizations like the Save the Internet coalition have banded people together to speak out in favor of net neutrality.
So what is the latest on this hot button legal issue? At the end of October, the FCC proposed formal rules about net neutrality. The proposal is now open for public comment until March, at which point the FCC will decide whether to take action. For neutrality supporters, it seems like this is a step in the right direction.
However, a group of highly influential legal scholars (including Larry Lessig and Tim Wu, who have both famously supported net neutrality) wrote in a letter to the Chairman of the FCC that “ambiguity” in the proposed language might leave loopholes for broadband providers to exploit in order to skirt the rules. For example, the proposal states that any rules would allow for “reasonable” network management; without a definition of “reasonable,” Internet providers could possibly hang their hats on their long-standing argument that net neutrality would impede their ability to protect against malware and congestion.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers are already coming out against the FCC stepping in. A House Rep from Tennessee has introduced a bill that would prohibit the FCC from “needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet.”
How could a resolution of this issue affect you? Whereas it is often characterized as coming down to a battle between, for example, AT&T and Google, any changes in the speed or structure of the Internet will affect every user. For organizations like Save the Internet, the warning seems to be: when it comes to net neutrality, you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.
For the past five years or so there has been a lot of lobbying to Congress on both sides of the issue. Advocates of network neutrality want the government to step in and make rules against Internet providers implementing such changes. The issue is becoming more in the public eye as well, as organizations like the Save the Internet coalition have banded people together to speak out in favor of net neutrality.
So what is the latest on this hot button legal issue? At the end of October, the FCC proposed formal rules about net neutrality. The proposal is now open for public comment until March, at which point the FCC will decide whether to take action. For neutrality supporters, it seems like this is a step in the right direction.
However, a group of highly influential legal scholars (including Larry Lessig and Tim Wu, who have both famously supported net neutrality) wrote in a letter to the Chairman of the FCC that “ambiguity” in the proposed language might leave loopholes for broadband providers to exploit in order to skirt the rules. For example, the proposal states that any rules would allow for “reasonable” network management; without a definition of “reasonable,” Internet providers could possibly hang their hats on their long-standing argument that net neutrality would impede their ability to protect against malware and congestion.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers are already coming out against the FCC stepping in. A House Rep from Tennessee has introduced a bill that would prohibit the FCC from “needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet.”
How could a resolution of this issue affect you? Whereas it is often characterized as coming down to a battle between, for example, AT&T and Google, any changes in the speed or structure of the Internet will affect every user. For organizations like Save the Internet, the warning seems to be: when it comes to net neutrality, you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Former Sears Employee Receives $6.2M in Discrimination Suit
Sears Holdings Corp. has agreed to pay $6.2 million to a disabled worker after allegedly firing him illegally. This record settlement was the largest ever for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that investigates discrimination complaints and files lawsuits on behalf of victims.
Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers’ compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer’s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife’s discount card was rejected.
EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.
As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers’ compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers’ compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.
Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn’t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.
Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava’s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers’ compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a “bright line marker” for the fact that “inflexible leave policies” are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes “inflexible”? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do “just enough” to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.
Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers’ compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer’s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife’s discount card was rejected.
EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.
As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers’ compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers’ compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.
Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn’t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.
Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava’s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers’ compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a “bright line marker” for the fact that “inflexible leave policies” are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes “inflexible”? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do “just enough” to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.
Baby Einstein Not So Smart: Disney Offers Refunds Following Legal Threats
The Baby Einstein line of multimedia products, launched in 1997 and sold in 2000 to Disney, made lofty claims about how the developmental videos would “facilitate the development of the brain in infants.” However, in recent years the company has scaled back those promises considerably, in part due to allegations of false advertising. Particularly after the American Academy of Pediatrics discouraged television viewing in children under the age of two, there have been questions about whether the videos do more harm than good – and whether consumers have been misled.
In 2006, Disney dropped the term “educational” from the products’ marketing materials when the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alleging false and deceptive advertising. The FTC is an independent government agency that promotes consumer protection.
Later that same year, academic studies surfaced revealing that baby videos like those in the Disney line could actually lead to a decrease in language acquisition for toddlers and infants. The FTC subsequently decided that the science was inconclusive, and since Disney had already watered down their marketing campaign (removing overt claims that the videos would improve child development), the agency took no action.
However, it was more recently when CCFC threatened Disney with a class-action lawsuit that the company took the step of offering refunds to customers. Disney is offering refunds or exchanges for any consumers “not satisfied” with their Baby Einstein DVDs that were purchased between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009.
Though Disney isn’t admitting any wrongdoing, this is a reminder that consumers are smart to be on their toes about potentially deceptive advertising. Though DVDs might be fairly harmless, something like drugs may not be.
In 2006, Disney dropped the term “educational” from the products’ marketing materials when the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alleging false and deceptive advertising. The FTC is an independent government agency that promotes consumer protection.
Later that same year, academic studies surfaced revealing that baby videos like those in the Disney line could actually lead to a decrease in language acquisition for toddlers and infants. The FTC subsequently decided that the science was inconclusive, and since Disney had already watered down their marketing campaign (removing overt claims that the videos would improve child development), the agency took no action.
However, it was more recently when CCFC threatened Disney with a class-action lawsuit that the company took the step of offering refunds to customers. Disney is offering refunds or exchanges for any consumers “not satisfied” with their Baby Einstein DVDs that were purchased between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009.
Though Disney isn’t admitting any wrongdoing, this is a reminder that consumers are smart to be on their toes about potentially deceptive advertising. Though DVDs might be fairly harmless, something like drugs may not be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
