Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Online Extra</b></i> Redbox Prevails in Video Privacy Protection Act Appeal
A federal appellate court ruled last month that self-service movie kiosk company Redbox did not violate the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving an outside customer-service vendor access to its customer database.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed Northern District of Illinois Judge Matthew Kennelly's August 2013 summary judgment for the company.
In'Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC, Kennelly wrote that the information sharing fell within an exception to the law that allows such disclosures in the ordinary course of business.
The Seventh Circuit agreed in a ruling by Judge Joel Flaum. 'If it is permissible to disclose [personally identifiable information] to Stream in order to respond to a customer's call, there is nothing objectionable about Redbox's wholesale disclosure of information pertaining to all customers, for use in the event of such a call,' he wrote. Judges Michael Kanne and Daniel Manion joined the opinion.
The ruling also approved disclosure of customer information in Stream's training programs.
Redbox user Kevin Sterk's original complaint, filed in March 2011, alleged that Redbox violated the act by unlawfully retaining customer information. His amended lawsuit, joined by Jiah Chung, added the unlawful-disclosure claim.
The Seventh Circuit ruled in 2012 that the law does not provide for monetary damages'for an unlawful retention claim.
Neither Redbox nor Dentons Chicago partner Natalie Spears, who argued for the company on appeal, responded to requests for comment.
Roger Perlstadt, a Chicago associate at Edelson who argued the plaintiffs' Seventh Circuit case, did not respond.
Thursday's ruling echoed recent district court decisions. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of Georgia this month dismissed a similar purported class action,'Ellis v. The Cartoon Network Inc.
In June, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler declined to certify a class allegedly harmed by video privacy act violations in'In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation.'In an April summary judgment, Beeler said Hulu was not liable for sharing user information with data analytics firm comScore Inc., but was liable for sharing it with Facebook Inc.
Sheri Qualters writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be contacted at [email protected].
'
'
A federal appellate court ruled last month that self-service movie kiosk company Redbox did not violate the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving an outside customer-service vendor access to its customer database.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed Northern District of Illinois Judge Matthew Kennelly's August 2013 summary judgment for the company.
In'Sterk v.
The Seventh Circuit agreed in a ruling by Judge Joel Flaum. 'If it is permissible to disclose [personally identifiable information] to Stream in order to respond to a customer's call, there is nothing objectionable about Redbox's wholesale disclosure of information pertaining to all customers, for use in the event of such a call,' he wrote. Judges Michael Kanne and Daniel Manion joined the opinion.
The ruling also approved disclosure of customer information in Stream's training programs.
Redbox user Kevin Sterk's original complaint, filed in March 2011, alleged that Redbox violated the act by unlawfully retaining customer information. His amended lawsuit, joined by Jiah Chung, added the unlawful-disclosure claim.
The Seventh Circuit ruled in 2012 that the law does not provide for monetary damages'for an unlawful retention claim.
Neither Redbox nor
Roger Perlstadt, a Chicago associate at Edelson who argued the plaintiffs' Seventh Circuit case, did not respond.
Thursday's ruling echoed recent district court decisions. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of Georgia this month dismissed a similar purported class action,'Ellis v. The Cartoon Network Inc.
In June, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Sheri Qualters writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be contacted at [email protected].
'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.