Vicarious liability may be used to state a claim under the FACTA provision prohibiting a retailer from printing a credit card expiration date on a receipt. See Keith v. Back Yard Burgers of Nebraska, Inc., No. 8:11-CV-135 (D. Neb. Apr. 13, 2012). According to the court, only one other unreported decision had addressed a franchisor's vicarious liability under FACTA.
Nowadays, a news story on privacy is out of place if it doesn't mention Do-Not-Track (known as "DNT") or Big Data. While these hot topics represent key concerns for privacy professionals, advocates and regulators, there is no clear agreement on what they mean or how to address the privacy issues they raise. In this post, we consider recent developments on these topics, including how the Federal Trade Commission has sought to focus on and connect these new issues.DNT or DNC DNT is in the midst of a multi-faceted identity crisis, starting with a disagreement over the definition of DNT. Self-regulatory organizations and the advertising industry assert that DNT stands for "Do Not Target," referring to the use of consumer data for the purposes of targeted advertising. The FTC, buoyed by privacy advocates, appears to take the view that DNT means not only "Do Not Target" but also "Do Not Collect" (DNC). FTC Commissioner Brill elaborated at the 2012 IAPP Summit that she doesn't view the current DNT efforts as entirely sufficient because the choice DNT offers does not give consumers appropriate protection against what Brill characterized as "limitless, unmitigated" data collection. But Brill does not argue for wholesale implementation of DNC, and has indicated that the details of the implementation of DNT/DNC will continue to remain a key focus for the FTC.
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.
The Federal Trade Commission announced today that Teletrack, Inc. has agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle charges that the company sold credit reports for marketing purposes, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the FTC's complaint, Teletrack sells credit reports and other services to businesses that mainly serve financially distressed consumers. Teletrack's business customers include pay day lenders, rental purchase stores and non-prime rate auto lenders. These businesses use Teletrack's credit reports to decide whether and on what terms to extend credit to their customers.
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.
This month, federal agencies and FINRA have announced significant privacy enforcement actions that have resulted in millions of dollars in fines. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) imposed a $4.3M fine on a health plan for violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule; the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settled with several resellers of consumer reports allegations that the resellers failed to adequately safeguard consumer information; and FINRA imposed a $600K fine on two securities firms for failure to safeguard access to customer records. Here are the details:
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.