Federal Court Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege for Employee’s Private Communications to which Employer Had Access

Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “On December 10, 2009, a federal judge in the District of Columbia upheld the attorney-client privilege for an employee’s emails to his attorney, even though his employer had access to them.  The attorney-client privilege generally only exists for private communications between a client and his lawyer, not to communications to which uninvolved third parties have access.  Here, the judge concluded that the privilege applied largely because the client was not aware that his employer had access to the emails.   The case is Convertino v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, D.D.C., No. 1:04-cv-00236.  The plaintiff, Convertino, claims that the DOJ improperly disclosed information about him the Detroit Free Press, in contravention of the Privacy Act. To prove his case, Convertino served a discovery request on the DOJ seeking production of some 736 documents.”

Facebook’s New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Electronic Frontier Foundation:  “Five months after it first announced coming privacy changes this past summer, Facebook is finally rolling out a new set of revamped privacy settings for its 350 million users. The social networking site has rightly been criticized for its confusing privacy settings, most notably in a must-read report by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner issued in July and most recently by a Norwegian consumer protection agency. We’re glad to see Facebook is attempting to respond to those privacy criticisms with these changes, which are going live this evening. Unfortunately, several of the claimed privacy “improvements” have created new and serious privacy problems for users of the popular social network service.  The new changes are intended to simplify Facebook’s notoriously complex privacy settings

The Clicks That Bind: Ways Users “Agree” to Online Terms of Service

Electronic Frontier Foundation:  When software asks if you to click to agree to its terms of service aka user agreement, do you read the actual agreement before clicking that you agree?  Whether you read the terms of service or not, are you becoming a party to an enforceable contract?  This article explores the contract issues arising from “click wrap” agreements in depth.

“I Agree.”  We have all, at some point while online, clicked on a button bearing these words.  Whether it is registering for a new social media account or just trying to get to our bank statements, one almost cannot visit a website today without eventually being asked to agree a listed set of “Terms and Conditions.”  But by clicking on such boxes, or even in some cases just by using the website, we as online users may be binding ourselves to legally enforceable contracts with the online service provider (i.e. website, MMORPG, etc.).”

Illinois Court Finds Use of Competitor’s Trade Name to Drive Search Engine Advertising Can Constitute Trademark Infringement

Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “Readers of this blog know that courts around the U.S. frequently arrive at opposite conclusions on whether the use of a competitor’s trademark in search engine advertising constitutes trademark infringement.  In my view, the courts should not devise a one-size-fits-all rule for such cases, but should consider whether the use of the competitor trade name was a fair use.  However, in a recent decision, an Illinois District Court came close to adopting a hard and fast rule that this practice does constitute trademark infringement — although, this ruling was only on a motion to dismiss, so the defendant still has some wiggle room.  The case is Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Products, Inc.”

Citysearch Click Fraud Class Action Certified — but Proving Meaningful Damages May Remain a Problem for Plaintiffs

Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “The recent certification of a national class action in the Citysearch click fraud case represents a major victory – at least for the plaintiffs’ counsel. But whether adjudication of the case will produce significant recoveries for the plaintiffs is an open question.  The Citysearch click fraud class action (Menagerie Productions v. Citysearch, C.D. Cal., No. 2:08-cv-04263) was brought on behalf of some 10,000 advertisers on Citysearch.com websites. Citysearch operates dozens of websites that provide information about restaurants, shops, hotels and other services in individual cities around the U.S. For example, at dallas.citysearch.com, Citysearch provides information geared towards the DFW metroplex.”

Go to Top