Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Online Exclusive:</b> Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Wake of AOL Search Data Gaffe
AOL is facing a possible class action lawsuit from subscribers whose online searches were compiled and placed online by the company in July. The search history database, which was put online on July 31, quickly moved outside the protected site where AOL placed it, and newspaper reporters and researchers were able to identify individuals on the database by analyzing their search histories. By the time AOL pulled the database 10 days later, the information had, in effect, 'become public record,' according to the lawsuit.
John Doe v. AOL LLC, filed on Sept. 22 in U.S. District Court in Oakland, CA, seeks class action status for the approximately 658,000 subscribers whose searches were publicly distributed. It also references a claim made by the World Privacy Forum that AOL distributed other databases of members' searches as far back as early 2004, and so it is seeking class action status for any AOL member from Jan. 1, 2004 to the present whose searches were shared with third parties.
The lawsuit (filed on behalf of Kasadore Ramkissoon of Richmond County, NY, and two California residents) claims that AOL violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '2702, the California Online Privacy Act of 2003, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code '22575, et seq., the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code '1750, et seq., the California Customer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code '1798.80, et seq., the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code '17500, et seq., the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code '17200, et seq., and common law.
'On information and belief, AOL, without the knowledge of its subscribers, has a business practice of recording and storing each and every query made by its members in a manner that uniquely correlates with the search query with the member who made it,' the complaint explains. 'AOL stores those records, for how long is presently unknown, as is the access it provides and to whom.'
The lawsuit quotes AOL's Privacy Policy as promising to members a specific level of privacy that has been violated by the publication of the online searches. The policy reads, in part: 'Your AOL Network information will not be shared with third parties unless it is necessary to fulfill a transaction you have requested, in other circumstances in which you have consented to the sharing of your AOL Network Information, or except as Described in this Privacy Policy. The AOL Network may use your AOL Network information to present offers to you on behalf of business partners and advertisers. These business partners and advertisers receive aggregate data about groups of AOL Network users, but do not receive information that personally identifies you.'
Yet, newspaper reporters and research professionals have shown that they could fairly easily identify specific people, based on their online searches because those searches sometimes contained a person's Social Security Number, credit card number, bank account, driver's license, or other information.
The lawsuit charges that although AOL tried to impose restrictions on the use of the database to ensure privacy, including a prohibition on commercial use, now that the database has reached beyond AOL, it is being republished by third parties for commercial gain. The complaint cites Google, which has a large investment in AOL, as one commercial site that is facilitating improper distribution of the list by not blocking purveyors of the list from its search engine.
'As of the date of this complaint it is the understanding of plaintiffs and their counsel that AOL has not done anything to help the members whose sensitive and personal and sensitive confidential records where [sic] released to the public by AOL,' according to the complaint. 'AOL's only response, if any, was to offer the victimized member a month of free AOL service,' which the complaint notes has been recently extended to all members anyway.
AOL's mistake already is the subject of a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And the company fired the two people most responsible for its release, received the resignation of its Chief Technology Officer, and has said it will hire an executive-level Chief Privacy Officer.
Total damages sought are not identified in the lawsuit. The lawsuit can be read online at www.bermanesq.com/pdf/AOL%20Privacy-cplt.pdf.
AOL is facing a possible class action lawsuit from subscribers whose online searches were compiled and placed online by the company in July. The search history database, which was put online on July 31, quickly moved outside the protected site where AOL placed it, and newspaper reporters and researchers were able to identify individuals on the database by analyzing their search histories. By the time AOL pulled the database 10 days later, the information had, in effect, 'become public record,' according to the lawsuit.
John Doe v. AOL LLC, filed on Sept. 22 in U.S. District Court in Oakland, CA, seeks class action status for the approximately 658,000 subscribers whose searches were publicly distributed. It also references a claim made by the World Privacy Forum that AOL distributed other databases of members' searches as far back as early 2004, and so it is seeking class action status for any AOL member from Jan. 1, 2004 to the present whose searches were shared with third parties.
The lawsuit (filed on behalf of Kasadore Ramkissoon of Richmond County, NY, and two California residents) claims that AOL violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '2702, the California Online Privacy Act of 2003, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code '22575, et seq., the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code '1750, et seq., the California Customer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code '1798.80, et seq., the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code '17500, et seq., the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code '17200, et seq., and common law.
'On information and belief, AOL, without the knowledge of its subscribers, has a business practice of recording and storing each and every query made by its members in a manner that uniquely correlates with the search query with the member who made it,' the complaint explains. 'AOL stores those records, for how long is presently unknown, as is the access it provides and to whom.'
The lawsuit quotes AOL's Privacy Policy as promising to members a specific level of privacy that has been violated by the publication of the online searches. The policy reads, in part: 'Your AOL Network information will not be shared with third parties unless it is necessary to fulfill a transaction you have requested, in other circumstances in which you have consented to the sharing of your AOL Network Information, or except as Described in this Privacy Policy. The AOL Network may use your AOL Network information to present offers to you on behalf of business partners and advertisers. These business partners and advertisers receive aggregate data about groups of AOL Network users, but do not receive information that personally identifies you.'
Yet, newspaper reporters and research professionals have shown that they could fairly easily identify specific people, based on their online searches because those searches sometimes contained a person's Social Security Number, credit card number, bank account, driver's license, or other information.
The lawsuit charges that although AOL tried to impose restrictions on the use of the database to ensure privacy, including a prohibition on commercial use, now that the database has reached beyond AOL, it is being republished by third parties for commercial gain. The complaint cites
'As of the date of this complaint it is the understanding of plaintiffs and their counsel that AOL has not done anything to help the members whose sensitive and personal and sensitive confidential records where [sic] released to the public by AOL,' according to the complaint. 'AOL's only response, if any, was to offer the victimized member a month of free AOL service,' which the complaint notes has been recently extended to all members anyway.
AOL's mistake already is the subject of a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And the company fired the two people most responsible for its release, received the resignation of its Chief Technology Officer, and has said it will hire an executive-level Chief Privacy Officer.
Total damages sought are not identified in the lawsuit. The lawsuit can be read online at www.bermanesq.com/pdf/AOL%20Privacy-cplt.pdf.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?