Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Plaintiff’s lawyers struggling to find another nuisance suit cash grab in a desert of privacy laws without a private right of action appear to have found their oasis.
A new wave of class action lawsuits has emerged in Arizona, targeting companies for their use of email tracking pixels. These cases allege violations of Arizona’s Telephone, Utility, and Communication Service Records Act (A.R.S. §44-1376 et seq.), which prohibits the unauthorized collection of “communication service records.”
Like a hiker desperate for water in the Valley of the Sun, plaintiff’s firms are desperately trying to tie the little-known law to common email tracking pixel technologies. With the potential for class-action litigation and significant financial exposure, companies relying on these technologies must reassess their risk.
Email tracking pixels are small, typically invisible image files embedded into many mass marketing emails. These pixels are typically one pixel by one pixel in size — hence the name — and are hosted on a remote server. When a recipient opens an email containing such a pixel, their device automatically loads the image from the server, which generates a record of the interaction.
While tracking pixels might sound sinister, these tools are widely used in digital marketing and analytics to track user engagement. Their capabilities include:
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.