As we have discussed on our blog, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has continued a campaign of enforcement actions against employers who, according to the NLRB, have unlawfully terminated employees for discussing working conditions on social media. As we reported, in the first of such "Facebook" enforcement actions to come before an NLRB administrative judge, the employer was ordered to reinstate five employees and to pay back their wages.On September 28, 2011, in the second "Facebook" case to reach an NLRB administrative judge, an employer was found to have been justified in terminating an employee car salesman for Facebook postings that mocked the employer and did not concern working conditions
It is being reported that Moscow prosecutors conducted an investigation into whether several websites that were involved in data breaches earlier this year violated the country's data protection law. As a result of the breaches, names, contact information and order histories of Internet magazine subscribers (including adult-themed publications) became available on Internet search engines, including Russian-language Yandex. Without naming the websites, the report states that the prosecutors have filed administrative charges against two Internet magazines as a result of the investigation.
Banks and other financial institutions face unique issues when it comes to the use of social media. Faced with conflicts between social media platform rules, customer expectations, self-regulatory standards, and the strict regulations that govern the industry, guidance has been needed. The industry received some of that guidance recently through a whitepaper issued by BITS, the technology arm of The Financial Services Roundtable whose members are 100 of the largest financial institutions in the U.S.The report addresses the compliance, legal, operational, and reputational risks - and related mitigation strategies - of using social media in connection with a financial or banking operation. Regarding compliance, the report discusses the myriad of compliance areas relevant to banks, including marketing, privacy and security. For example, because social media web sites and web activities are deemed advertising by regulators, the report warns of the risks of failing to comply with various marketing laws and regulations applicable to the banking industry, including state Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices Acts and Prize and Gift Acts, as well as others that require additional steps for financial institutions, such as Truth in Lending, Truth in Savings, and FDIC membership rules. The paper predicts even stronger and more subjective requirements to come under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Risks of non-compliance vary widely - from litigation and reputation risk, regulatory enforcement actions and in some cases civil money penalties.
We previously reported on our blog that a Connecticut ambulance company settled the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) allegations that the company violated an employee's federal rights by firing her for criticizing a manager on Facebook. The NLRB continues its enforcement blitz with another Facebook firing complaint.
On May 3, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Ceridian Corporation and Lookout Services, Inc. agreed to settle the FTC's allegations that the companies failed to safeguard their business customers' employee personal information. Ceridian's services include payroll processing, payroll-related tax filing, benefits administration and other human resource services for business customers. Lookout provides a web-based computer product that is designed to help employers comply with their obligations under federal law to complete and maintain a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-9 about each employee in order to verify that the employee is eligible to work in the United States.
Yesterday we wrote on our blog about the NLRB's Facebook firing settlement. I was interviewed on Fox Live this morning about the case, its implications for employees and businesses, and other developments in workplace privacy. You can view the clip at http://video.foxnews.com/v/4531424/facebook-firing-case-settlement/?playlist_id=87937
The Blog of Legal Times is reporting that late on December 7, 2010 the House of Representatives passed a bill on a voice vote that amends the definition of "creditor" in the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and, as a result, dramatically limits the scope of the Red Flags Rule. The House bill is identical to the legislation enacted by the Senate last week. We previously covered in detail on our blog both the House bill and the Senate bill.The legislation has the effect of largely limiting the applicability of the Red Flags Rule to financial institutions and entities commonly understood to be "creditors". It will generally exclude from the Rule's scope organizations whose "credit" activities are limited to providing a product or service and allowing customers to pay for the product or service at a later time. The legislation leaves open the possibility that the FTC would bring various types of creditors within the scope of the Rule through rulemaking. However, it sets a procedural threshold for expanding the scope of the Rule and appears to require the determination to be specific to the type of creditor. "When I think of the word 'creditor,' dentists, accounting firms and law firms do not come to mind," said Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.), speaking on the House floor.
Last week, the U.S. Senate adopted by unanimous consent a bill (S. 3987) that would limit the scope of the Federal Trade Commission's Red Flags Rule by amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act's (FCRA's) definition of "creditor." The Senate bill is identical to the bipartisan House proposal we covered in detail in our blog on November 22, 2010.Both bills have been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Given that the House and Senate are now on the same page with respect to the Red Flags Rule, there is a good chance that this proposal will become law before the FTC begins enforcing the Rule on December 31, 2010. The bills seek to largely limit the applicability of the Red Flags Rule to entities commonly understood to be "creditors". They would generally exclude from the Rule's scope organizations whose "credit" activities are limited to providing a product or service and allowing customers to pay for the product or service at a later time.
As reported by Dan Or-Hof, Manager of the Information Technology, Internet and Copyright group at the Israeli law firm of Pearl Cohen Zedek & Latzer, in a first of its kind decision, the Tel-Aviv district court ruled on November 30, 2010 that a subscriber of cellular services does not have a general right to have his phone records deleted.