Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FTC Staff Proposal Raises the Bar for Behavioral Advertising
The release of these Principles followed a two-day Town Hall meeting the FTC held late last year on behavioral advertising, which itself followed the FTC's Tech-Ade Workshop in 2006. The FTC staff's Principles include specific recommendations and questions for industry regarding:
- Transparency and consumer control (including notice and choice);
- Data security;
- Data retention;
- Changes to privacy policies (including a proposed opt-in for the retroactive application of material changes to privacy policies); and
- Questions regarding how sensitive data should be treated.
Comments on the proposed Principles were initially due by Feb. 22, but the deadline was extended to April 11. Comments are likely to range from the very specific ' some trade associations may propose entirely new or modified self-regulatory principles for their members ' to the general, with other trade associations and coalitions offering arguments, and perhaps even econometric and other statistical evidence supporting arguments opposed to the staff's proposals.
While the FTC document recognizes that behavioral advertising provides a number of benefits to consumers, it is important to understand that the staff's proposed Principles are based on the premises that:
- Consumers are unaware of behavioral-advertising practices or cannot discern when such practices are used;
- Transparency and consumer autonomy are critical to consumer trust and to the online marketplace; and
- Data collected for behavioral advertising may fall into the wrong hands or be used for unanticipated purposes.
Broad Definition of Behavioral Advertising
The proposed Principles, describ-ed in detail below, would impose a heavy self-regulatory burden on the online behavioral-advertising industry. The Principles would extend well beyond the principles of the Net-work Advertising Initiative ('NAI') for Online Preference Marketing (see, www.networkadvertising.org/pdfs/NAI_principles.pdf.), approved by the FTC in 2000 (see, Online Profiling, A Report to Congress Part 2: Recommendations (July 2000), available at www.ftc.gov/os/2000/07/onlineprofiling.htm). They would also apply to a very wide array of online activity.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.