A Georgia attorney recently learned the hard way that the Internet is no place to vent about a client.  The attorney (Skinner) received negative comments from a client on consumer review websites.  In response, Skinner posted personal and confidential information about the client on the Internet.  After a formal complaint was filed against Skinner by the State Bar of Georgia, Skinner filed a petition for voluntary discipline admitting that she violated Rule 1.6 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.  Rule 1.6 requires a lawyer to maintain the confidentiality of all information gained in the professional relationship with a client unless the client consents to disclosure after consultation.  The client obviously did not consent to Skinner sharing her private information on cyberspace.

Skinner filed a motion for voluntary discipline in the form of a reprimand, which is the mildest form of discipline authorized for Rule 1.6 violations.  The Georgia Supreme Court rejected Skinner’s petition despite recommendations by the Office of General Counsel of the State Bar and a special master to accept it.  As a result, Skinner could face stricter disciplinary measures for her violations.

LegalTXT Lesson: Posting confidential information on the Internet is generally a bad idea.  Especially if the information concerns somebody else.  And you’re a lawyer.  If you’re a professional who has an ethical duty to preserve confidences, like a lawyer, sharing confidential information about a client online is an invitation for trouble.

On a related note, responding to negative online comments with more criticism or hurtful actions (like revealing personal information about the commenter) is rarely an effective means of repairing reputation.  The meltdown on the Facebook page of Amy’s Baking Company is an extreme example (although the owners claim the page was hacked).   As the adage goes, don’t fight fire with fire.

Related articles

• 4 Ethical & Practical Mistakes Lawyers Should Avoid On Social Media
• Confidentiality, Smart Phones and Lawyers, oh my!
• Keep Client and Employee Data Safe & Your Business Out of Trouble

The NLRB recently dealt another blow to the ability of employers to prohibit employees from engaging in disparaging speech on social media.  On November 14, 2012, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the NRLB issued a decision striking down two rules in Dish Network’s employee handbook dealing with social media use.  The first rule prohibited employees from making disparaging or defamatory comments about their employer.  The ALJ found that the rule could unlawfully chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to engage in concerted activity.  The second rule prohibited employees from engaging in “negative electronic discussion” during company time.  This rule could effectively ban union activities during breaks and other non-working hours at the workplace, the ALJ concluded.

This was not the first time Dish Network’s social media policy came under fire.  On May 31, 2012, the Acting General Counsel of the NLRB issued a memo criticizing provisions of actual social media policies.  Dish Network was one of the companies whose policies were scrutinized in the memo.  But while the memo was merely advisory, the latest ALJ ruling is not.

Recent NLRB rulings like this one leave behind a wake of confusion for employers.  Provisions that are commonplace in employee handbooks, like non-disparagement rules, are being invalidated when applied in the social media context.  To add to the confusion, the NLRB can seem inconsistent.  For example, the May 30 memo approved Wal-Mart’s social media policy, which includes an instruction to “refrain from using social media while on work time” or on company equipment.  However, the NLRB struck down Dish Network’s practice of banning social media activity on company time.  What’s an employer to do?  Few definitive answers are available, but here are a few ideas to help you survive in this uncertain environment:

• Stop treating social media as a novelty.  Employers who still regard social media as a frivolous activity tend to use draconian measures (like categorical bans) to regulate it.  The reality is that social media has become part of everyday life, nearly as much as cellphones and texting has.  The point is not to restrict social media use per se, but to manage the consequences of such use.  Which leads us to . . .

• Focus on outcomes.  Dish Network very well could have intended its non-disparagement work rule to protect its brand and reputation rather than prohibit employee discussion about their work conditions or compensation.  However, the rule did not clearly spell out its objectives.  Tell employees the outcomes you want to avoid.  If what you want to prevent are discriminatory remarks that create a hostile work environment, say so.  This was one of the features of the Wal-Mart policy that the NLRB’s May 30 memo approved.  In a section of the policy entitled “Be Respectful,” Wal-Mart states that if an employee decides to post complaints or criticism, they should ” avoid using statements, photographs, video or audio that reasonably could be viewed as malicious, obscene, threatening or intimidating, that disparage customers, members, associates or suppliers, or that might constitute harassment or bullying.”  The policy then listed examples of such conduct, such as “offensive posts meant to intentionally harm someone’s reputation or posts that could contribute to a hostile work environment on the basis of race, sex, disability,religion or any other status protected by law or company policy.”

• Stay positive.  Rather than just banning certain kinds of conduct on social media, consider setting affirmative guidelines that employees should adhere to when communicating with others, whether on social media or other communication channels.  For example, do you want your organization to be portrayed in a certain way?  Then describe the image you would like your employees to convey to others in their communications when talking about the organization.

• It’s not over.  The NLRB rulings are not the final word on how broadly employers may regulate social media activity of employees.  Although ALJ decisions and even those of NLRB panels are more authoritative than guidance memos, courts have yet to weigh in.

That’s not to say that the 2013 session was completely devoid of tech.  I’ve prepared a chart of all the bills related to electronic, digital, and information technology that the Hawai‘i State Legislature passed this session.  (Many thanks to the Legislative Reference Bureau for providing the summaries that are incorporated into the chart).  Governor Neil Abercrombie has already signed some of the bills into law.  Others are pending a decision from the Governor.  To summarize, the legislature this year addressed:

• Adoption of the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act

• Portable electronics insurance

• Clarification of relationship between Uniform Commercial Code Article 4A and Electronic Fund Transfer Act

• Licensing requirements for telemedicine practitioners employed by the U.S. Department of Defense

• Duties of the State Chief Information Officer

• Electronic posting of reports of Department of Health inspection of state licensed care facilities

• Availability of State open data

• Approval of broadband related permits

• Electronic prescriptions

• Tax credits for film and digital media industry

• Ban on use of mobile electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle

For summaries of all the bills that passed this session, read the full LRB report.  For even more information visit the Legislature’s website for the full text of bills, committee reports, and testimony.  I’ll update the chart after the Governor’s veto deadline has passed, so check back in a while.

Related articles

• Hits and misses for Hawaii gov in 2013 Legislature
• Hawaii Legislature Advances Bill to Ban Employer Access to Social Media Accounts of Job Applicants and Employees

Nosal is back.  This is the case that spawned a Ninth Circuit decision narrowing the reach of the CFAA to hacking activity.  The case returned to the trial court after the Ninth Circuit decision.  The trial court recently convicted the defendant (David Nosal) of violating the CFAA.  But before analyzing the decision, let’s take a brief look at the background.

Nosal is a former employee of Korn/Ferry, an executive search and recruiting firm.  After leaving Korn/Ferry, Nosal obtained access to Korn/Ferry’s confidential and proprietary data with help from others.  In some instances, Nosal got Korn/Ferry employees to give their passwords to outsiders to enable them to access the firm’s computer systems.  In another instance, a Korn/Ferry employee logged onto the firm’s computer system using her password and then allowed a non-employee to use the system.  Nosal used the stolen data to start his own executive search business.  Nosal and his co-conspirators were indicted for violating the CFAA by exceeding authorized access to Korn/Ferry’s computers “knowingly and with intent to defraud.”

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the CFAA’s prohibition on accessing computers “without authorization” or “exceeding authorized access” is limited to violations of restrictions on access to information, not restrictions on its use.  The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the CFAA primarily targets hacking rather than misappropriation of information.  The Ninth Circuit returned the case to the trial court to determine if Nosal violated the CFAA under its interpretation of the statute.

Nosal tried to persuade the trial court to push the Ninth Circuit’s rationale one step further.  Nosal argued that, since the CFAA is an anti-hacking statute, it is violated only when someone circumvents technological barriers to access to a computer.  Under this narrow interpretation, not every form of unauthorized access to a computer necessarily violates the CFAA.  The trial court disagreed with Nosal’s interpretation because the Ninth Circuit did not base CFAA liability on the manner in which access is restricted.  Moreover, password protection is a form of a technological access barrier, and Nosal and his co-conspirators clearly bypassed password restrictions.

Nosal next argued that his co-conspirators did not act “without authorization” because they used a valid password issued to a Korn/Ferry employee.  The court wasn’t enamored with this argument either.  Whether an act is authorized must be viewed from the perspective of the employer who maintains the computer system.  Clearly, an employer would not authorize an employee to allow another person to use his or her password.  Nosal attempted to analogize consensual use of an employee’s computer password to consensual use of an employee’s key to gain physical access to a building, a situation that Nosal argued would not violate trespass law.  The court also rejected this argumen.

Finally, Nosal argued that the Korn/Ferry employee who engaged in “shoulder surfing” (i.e., logging into the firm’s computer system and then letting another person use the system) did not engage in unauthorized “access.”   The court found no difference between an employee who gives her password to an outsider and an employee who logs into the firm’s computer system with her password and then lets an outsider use the system.  Both situations qualify as “access” under the CFAA.

LegalTXT Lesson: The CFAA targets hacking instead of misappropriation (so the Ninth Circuit says), but hacking could take various forms.  According to the latest Nosal decision, the CFAA criminalizes at least these forms: (a) breaking into a computer system; (b) letting an outsider use your password to access a system; (c) logging into a system with your password and then letting an outsider use the system.

Related articles

• Hawaii Legislature Advances Bill to Ban Employer Access to Social Media Accounts of Job Applicants and Employees
• NLRB Sanctions Employers Who Fire Employees For Online “Protected Concerted Activity”
• No Proof, No Worry
• CDA Immunity and Search Results

In Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc., 359 NRLB No. 37 (Dec. 14, 2012), an employee at a domestic violence relief organization posted on Facebook about a co-worker (Cruz-Moore) who threatened to complain about the work habits of other employees to the executive director of the organization.  The employee wrote: “Lydia Cruz, a coworker feels that we don’t help our clients enough . . . .  I about had it!  My fellow coworkers how do u feel?”  Four off-duty employees responded to this post with disagreement over Cruz-Moore’s alleged criticisms.  Cruz-Moore saw these posts, responded to them, and brought them to the attention of the executive director.  The employee who authored the original post and the employees who responded were fired.  Two NLRB members of a three-person panel found the termination to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  The NLRB found the posts to be “concerted” because they had the “clear ‘mutual aid’ objective for preparing coworkers for a group defense to [Cruz-Moore’s] complaints.”   The NLRB also considered the posts “protected” because they related to job performance matters.

In Pier Sixty, LLC, 2013 WL 1702462 (NLRB Div. of Judges Apr. 18, 2013), the service staff of a catering company were in the process of taking a vote on union representation when a staff member (Perez) got upset by what he perceived as harassment by his manager.  During a break, Perez went to the bathroom and posted on Facebook: “Bob is such a NASTY M***** F****R don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!  F**k his mother and his entire f*****g family!!!!  What a LOSER!!!!  Vote YES for the UNION.”  Various co-workers responded to the post.  The company fired Perez after learning about the post.  An administrative law judge of the NLRB held that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.  The judge found the post to constitute “protected activity” because it was part of an ongoing sequence of events involving employee attempts to protest and remedy what they saw as rude and demeaning treatment by their managers.  The post was also “concerted” because it was activity undertaken on behalf of a union.

In Design Technology Group, LLC d/b/a Bettie Page Clothing, 359 NLRB No. 96 (Apr. 19, 2013), employees of a clothing store repeatedly but unsuccessfully attempted to persuade their employer to close the store earlier so that they wouldn’t have to walk through an unsafe neighborhood at night.  The employees posted Facebook messages lamenting the denial of their request and criticizing their manager.  In one message, an employee said she would bring in a book on workers’ rights to shed light on their employer’s labor law violations.  Another employee saw the messages and sent them to the HR director, who in turn forwarded them to the store owner.  The owner fired the employees who posted the messages, allegedly for insubordination.   A NLRB administrative law judge found the terminations unlawful because the messages were a continuation of an effort to address concerns about work safety (i.e., leaving work late at night in an unsafe neighborhood) and thus constituted protected concerted activity.

LegalTXTS Lesson:  What should employers learn from these decisions?  To avoid violating Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employers might consider the following before disciplining employees based on their social media activity:

• Check whether the employee’s post attracted or solicited a response from co-workers.  The interactive nature of social networking means that communications via social media are often “concerted.”
• Calls for co-workers to take action likely constitute “protected” activity.
• Complaints about work or co-workers—even if vulgar—can be considered “protected” activity.
• Messages posted outside of the workplace or work hours can still be considered protected concerted activity.
• Be especially sensitive to messages that reference collective bargaining activity or labor requirements.  Those are red flags indicating the need to exercise caution.
• Often, social media is not the initial venue for airing work-related complaints.  Investigate whether the complaints voiced online were previously brought to the attention of the employer.  If they were, the online messages are more likely to be found to be part of a series of protected activity.

Related articles

• Another NLRB Facebook Case
• Huge Expansion of “Protected Concerted Activity”?

A person who brings a successful Stored Communications Act (SCA) claim can recover at least $1,000 without having to prove actual damages.  In Shefts v. Petrakis, the plaintiff (Shefts) sued his former employer for violating the SCA by illegally accessing his various messaging accounts, including a Yahoo! email account.  (See my post on an earlier decision in this case regarding after-the-fact authorization of access to emails.)  Shefts did not seek actual damages, but instead, statutory damages under the SCA.  The SCA states that “[t]he court may assess as damages . . . the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”  18 U.S.C. § 2707(c).  The defendants argued that Shefts could not recover statutory damages without proving actual damages.  Shefts countered that he may recover statutory damages as an alternative to actual damages.

The trial court agreed with Shefts.  Finding no Supreme Court precedent on point, the court looked at the plain language of the damages statute, legislative history, and other district court decisions.  The court found that the plain language of the statute entitled a successful plaintiff to obtain minimum recovery of $1,000 in statutory damages.  The legislative history also evidenced the intent of Congress to allow recovery of at least $1,000.  Also persuasive to the court were other district court decisions finding that the SCA does not require actual damages as a condition to recovery.  The court’s ruling meant that, assuming Shefts could establish liability under the SCA, his failure to seek actual damages would not preclude him from recovering statutory damages.

Google successfully obtained dismissal of a defamation lawsuit filed by a person (Mmubango) who found derogatory comments about him posted online.  Mmubango discovered anonymous statements about himself on the “Wikiscams” website.  Mmubango asked Google to remove the statements from its search engine and to give him information about the poster of the comments.  Google refused.

Mmubango sued Google and others for defamation, and Google defended by moving to dismiss the claim based on Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunity.  The federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed that Google met the requirements for CDA immunity.  First, Google is an interactive computer service provider.  Second, Google did not author the allegedly defamatory content, but instead, was provided with it by another information content provider (i.e., Wikiscams).  The defamation claim alleged that  Google was liable for storing and broadcasting the derogatory comments about Mmubango.  Third, Mmubango was seeking to treat Google as the publisher of third-party statements.  Deciding whether to provide access to third-party content or, alternatively, to delete the content is an act of publishing.  Under section 230 of the CDA, Google could not be held liable for defamation based on its decision to publish a third party’s statements.  The court dismissed Google from the case.

]]> http://www.legaltxts.com/to-delete-or-not-delete-cda-protects-you-either-way/feed/ 0 http://www.legaltxts.com/hawaii-legislature-advances-bill-to-ban-employer-access-to-social-media-accounts-of-job-applicants-and-employees/ http://www.legaltxts.com/hawaii-legislature-advances-bill-to-ban-employer-access-to-social-media-accounts-of-job-applicants-and-employees/#comments Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:08:31 +0000 Elijah Yip http://www.legaltxts.com/?p=716 Hawai‘i has jumped on the bandwagon of states (along with 31 other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures) introducing legislation to ban employers from requesting access to social media accounts of job applicants.  Several bills on the subject were introduced in this year’s legislative session, but the one that appears to have the best chance of becoming law is HB713 H.D. 2 S.D. 1 (HB713).  The bill has passed the House and gained the approval of two Senate committees.  Next up for the bill is review by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  As HB713 gains traction, let’s take a look at what it says and some issues it raises in its current form.

SUMMARY OF HB713, H.D. 2

HB713 would insert a new section into the Hawai‘i statute governing discriminatory employment practices, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 378, part I.  The proposed law would apply to both job applicants and existing employees.  Employers are prohibited from gaining access to a “personal account,” which is defined as:

An account, service, or profile on a social networking website that is used by an employee or potential employee exclusively for personal communications unrelated to any business purposes of the employer.  This definition shall not apply to any account, service, profile, or electronic mail created, maintained, used, or accessed by an employee or potential employee for business purposes of the employer or to engage in business-related communications.

Specifically, an employer may not “require, request, suggest, or cause” an employee or job applicant to: (1) turn over access to his or her personal account; (2) access his or her personal account while the employer looks on; or (3) divulge any personal account.  An employer also may not fire, discipline, threaten, or retaliate against an employee or job applicant for turning down an illegal request for access.

There are exceptions, however.

• An employer may conduct an investigation to ensure compliance with law, regulatory requirements, or prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct based on receipt of specific information about activity on a personal online account or service by an employee or other source.

• An employer may conduct an investigation of an employee’s actions based on the receipt of specific information about unauthorized transfer of the employer’s proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to a personal online account or service.

• An employer may monitor, review, access, or block electronic data (a) stored on an electronic communications device that it pays for in part or in whole, or (b) traveling through or stored on an employer’s network, in compliance with state and federal law.

• An employer may get an employee’s login credentials to access an electronic communications device supplied or paid for in whole or in part by the employer.

• An employer may get an employee’s login credentials to access accounts or services provided by the employer or “by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship with the employer” or that the employee uses for business purposes.

• HB713 specifies that the proposed law is not intended to prevent an employer from complying with other law or the rules of self-regulatory organizations, and that the proposed law should not be construed to conflict with federal law.

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS

Shoulder surfing nixed.  The bill appears to make “shoulder surfing” by an employer illegal per se.  Suppose an employee tells his boss, “Man, you cannot believe the whales my friend saw on her boat this weekend!  She sent me a video of it on Facebook.”  Intrigued, the boss says he wants to see the video.  The employee obliges by logging on to her Facebook account while her boss watches over her shoulder.  Did the boss unlawfully “request” that the employee grant him access to her “personal account”?  Technically, yes.  Note that HB713 has no exception for voluntary consent of the employee.

“Friending” employees might become illegal.  Employers and employees sometimes connect on the same social network.  While it isn’t always a good idea for an employer to “friend” an employee, it’s not illegal to do so—unless, perhaps, HB713 becomes the law.  HB713 bans an employer from requesting that an employee “divulge any personal account.”  Yet, that’s exactly what a friend request does—it requests access to portions of a social media account that can be viewed only by the account owner’s “friends.”  The “divulge” language probably was intended to reach situations where an employer demands that an employee hand over access to another employee’s personal account.  But as written, HB713’s prohibition against divulging any personal account could be interpreted to apply to innocent “friending.”

The line between personal and private is blurry.  In a perfect world, employees would use business social media accounts strictly for business purposes and conduct all of their personal social media activity using separate social media accounts.   That’s a best practice, not necessarily reality.  The line between personal and business can get blurry in the social media space.  It’s not unusual for employees to talk about work or promote their company within their personal social networks.  If the employee uses his or her personal account for work purposes, shouldn’t the employer, who might have responsibility for the actions of its employee, be entitled to access the employee’s personal account in certain circumstances?  On the other hand, to what extent must an employee use his or her personal account for work-related interactions before the employer should be allowed access to the account?  These are difficult issues.

To address the issue, the latest draft of the bill tightens up the definition of “personal account” a bit and specifies that an employer may obtain login credentials from an employee to access “[a]ny accounts or services provided by the employer or by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship with the employer or that the employee uses for business purposes.”  This language is somewhat vague.  For example, what does “by virtue of the employer’s employment relationship with the employer” mean?  It might well be that HB713 is trying to draw artificial distinctions between personal and work social media accounts when in practice, the distinction is sometimes fuzzy at best.

HB713 still has a few hurdles to overcome before it becomes law.  Here at LegalTXTS, we’ll keep an eye out for the status of the bill.

Big Data equal big assets, and in 2012, Twitter made significant moves toward putting a premium on its assets by restricting access to its data to third-party services (count Instagram and Tumblr among those affected).  Social analytics provider PeopleBrowsr was one of the services affected by the changes in Twitter’s data access policies.  In 2012, Twitter shut off PeopleBrowsr’s access to the “Firehose,” the nickname for the full stream of every tweet posted on Twitter.  PeopleBrowsr mines data from the Firehose to derive insights about consumer reactions and identify social influencers for its clients.  PeopleBrowsr fought back against the impending Firehose shutoff by suing Twitter in California state court and successfully obtaining a temporary restraining order to stop the shutoff.

The next chapter in the lawsuit unfolded in federal court.  Twitter removed the lawsuit to federal court and then filed a motion to dismiss the action.  But the lawsuit’s stay in federal court will be brief because federal district judge Edward Chen recently issued a decision sending the lawsuit back to state court.  Twitter invoked federal jurisdiction on the ground that PeopleBrowsr’s claim for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is based in part on the Sherman Act, over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.  Not so fast, said Judge Chen.  At best, the Sherman Act might give Twitter a defense to the UCL claim.  Unlike an affirmative claim for relief, a defense under federal law is not enough to support federal jurisdiction.  The alleged violations of the UCL were based entirely on California law.  Since federal courts have no jurisdiction over the lawsuit, the fight over the Firehose will continue in California courts.  The court awarded attorneys’ fees to Peoplebrowsr for opposing the removal of the case to federal court.

We’ve seen cases  where employees were disciplined or fired for venting online (see posts here and here).  But what about when the employer does the venting?  That can create legal problems as well.

Creative Commons image courtesy of Ethan Bloch on Flickr

Employees of different bars in the well-known Coyote Ugly Saloon franchise filed a class action against corporate entities related to the franchise and Coyote Ugly’s president and founder, Liliana Lovell.  The lawsuit claimed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  One of the plaintiffs (Stewart), claims that her employer retaliated against her shortly after the lawsuit was filed.  The alleged retaliation came in the form of this entry on Lovell’s “Lil Spills” blog, which appears on Coyote Ugly’s website:

“By the way Lil, you should be getting served with a lawsuit. No worries just sign for it”. This particular case will end up pissing me off cause it is coming from someone we terminated for theft. I have to believe in my heart that somewhere down the road, bad people end up facing bad circumstances!
I have been reading the basics of Buddhism and am going to a class on Monday. The Buddhist way would be to find beauty in the situation and release anger knowing that peace will come. Obviously , I am still a very new Buddhist cause my thoughts are ” fuck that bitch”. Let me do my breathing exercises and see if any of my thoughts change. Lol

Stewart claimed that the entry falsely accused of her theft.

A second employee (Stone), claimed that Coyote Ugly’s Director of Operations (Huckaby) made the following post to his Facebook page: “Dear God, please don’t let me kill the girl that is suing me .… that is all …..”  Huckaby was intoxicated when he made this post.  According to Stone, Huckaby was sitting across the bar from her when he made the post.  Stone, who at the time was Facebook friends with Huckaby, saw the post on her phone almost an hour later, but the post was removed the next day.  Huckaby did not remember making or removing the Facebook post.

Stone further claimed that Huckaby made retaliatory comments the next night after learning that a customer threatened to sue after falling down some stairs.  Huckaby allegedly said: “Why does everyone sue?  I’m tired of all these bi***es taking their issues out on our company.  They’re f***ing idiots.”  Huckaby made the statements while Stone was approximately two feet away.  Stone quit her job the next day.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the two individual retaliation claims.  One of the issues relating to Stewart’s claim was whether the Lil Spills blog entry was an “adverse action.”  A plaintiff claiming retaliation “must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action material adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”  Burlington N. & Santa Fe. Ry. V. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006).  Applying that standard, the court found that a blog entry written by the employer’s founder and president accusing an employee of theft could constitute an adverse action.  A jury could find that the blog entry would have likely dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a FLSA claim.  Because genuine issues of material fact existed, the court denied summary judgment on Stewart’s retaliation claim.

Similarly, factual issues precluded summary judgment on Stone’s retaliation claim.  The court found that a reasonable person could find that Huckaby’s Facebook post was directed at Stone given that he knew she had joined the lawsuit and had made the post while seated across from her at the bar.  The Facebook post, together with the comments Huckaby made the following night, could be reasonably construed as the employer’s official hostility toward employees who bring lawsuits against it.  The court found that a reasonable person in Stone’s situation would have felt compelled to resign.  On the flip side, the court also denied Stone’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim because there were factual disputes over Huckaby’s state of mind.  There was no evidence that Huckaby mentioned the lawsuit or Stone’s name while making either of the statements, and it was undisputed that he was drinking in both instances.

LegalTXTS Lesson: Authenticity can be an important part of a company’s brand or social engagement strategy, but sometimes a company’s self-expression can go too far.  As this case illustrates, even stray remarks can have legal consequences.  Like employees, employers need to exercise good judgment when posting content online.  Complaining about employees on the Internet rarely constitutes good judgment.  This is especially true if managers are connected to their subordinates on the same social network and therefore share content with each other.

Creative Commons image courtesy of Daigo Oliva on Flickr

The Hawaii anti-paparazzi bill eponymously named after its chief supporter is back after getting an extreme makeover, and it just took another step toward becoming law in Hawaii.  The Senate Judiciary Committee has recommended passage of a revised version of the Steven Tyler Act (SB426, S.D. 1).  The revised bill is a big improvement from the original version.  It goes a long way toward remedying the problems discussed in my previous post on the Act, and now it looks much more like the California statute after which it was patterned.  But despite the revisions, the Act remains quirky in some ways, and it still doesn’t answer the question of why we need a brand-new privacy law.

Here are the highlights of the revised bill.  The revised bill:

• creates an actual tort for constructive invasion of privacy, not just one in the name.  The original bill tried to create a constructive invasion of privacy tort, but the parameters of the tort were not well-defined.
• defines certain concepts that are key to liability under the Act, like “personal and familial activity.”
• makes it very difficult to impose liability on those publicizing or selling images or sound recordings that were captured in violation of the Act.
• carves out exceptions to liability, including one for law enforcement activities.
• creates a fairly novel process for raising a defense against invasion of privacy claims in court based on the First Amendment or its counterpart in the Hawaii State Constitution.

Now, let’s look at some of the features of the revised bill in greater detail.

Constructive Right of Privacy

The revised bill creates two types of invasion of privacy, one physical in nature and the other constructive.  Both require an intrusion into land owned or leased by the plaintiff.  This is an important revision because it gets rid of the “taking pictures at the beach” scenario (i.e., why should a celebrity complain about invasion of privacy if her picture is taken on a public beach?)

An intrusion, however, does not necessarily require a physical trespass onto the plaintiff’s property.  Spying and eavesdropping could constitute intrusion, but does not necessarily involve a physical trespass.  The tort of constructive invasion of privacy accounts for this distinction, stating that non-physical intrusions will be treated as invasions of privacy.  The use of “visual or auditory enhancing devices” to probe into the plaintiff’s private affairs, regardless of whether it involves a physical trespass, counts as an invasion of privacy.  That’s how constructive invasion of privacy works.

The original bill bungled the concept of constructive invasion of privacy by not tying liability to the use of visual or auditory enhancing devices.  The revised bill fixes that problem.

“Personal and Familial Activity”

The original bill left out definitions of key concepts.  A notable one was “personal and familial activity,” which is what the plaintiff must have been engaged in when the defendant captured images or recordings of him or her.  The original bill did not define the term.  The revised bill adopts the definition used in the California anti-paparazzi law.

Having a definition rather than none is a step in the right definition, but the definition is still too vague.  The revised bill defines “personal and familial activity” as “intimate details of the plaintiff’s personal life, interactions with the plaintiff’s family or significant others, or other aspects of the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns.”  What range of activities does “the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns” include?  The revised bill doesn’t say.

Liability of Sellers of Images and Recordings

One criticism of the Act was that it punishes sellers of images or recordings of celebrities.  The Act imposes liability on those who sold images or recordings that were captured in violation of the Act if they had “actual knowledge” of the violation and received compensation for the rights to the images or recordings.  One problem of the original bill is that “actual knowledge” was not defined, so the level of intent needed to trigger liability wasn’t clear.  The revised bill remedies that problem by defining “actual knowledge.”  The definition requires “actual awareness, understanding, and recognition” that the image or recording was taken or captured in violation of the Act.  That’s difficult to prove.

But the revised bill goes one step further in limiting publisher and seller liability.  The plaintiff has the burden of establishing actual knowledge by “clear and convincing evidence.”  This is the highest standard of proof in a civil matter (just below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal cases).

The plaintiff’s burden to prove the liability of publishers and sellers is reminiscent of the “actual malice” standard applicable in libel cases brought by a public official or public figure.  In other words, the revised bill makes it very, very difficult to prove publisher and seller liability.

The revised bill also makes clear that there is no derivative liability for publicizing or selling an image or recording if it had been previously publicized or sold before without violating the Act.

Exceptions to Liability

The revised bill creates exceptions to liability, most notably for activities relating to law enforcement and investigation into illegal conduct.  The revised bill also clarifies that the Act does not preclude suits for other legal or equitable relief under other theories, including the Hawai‘i anti-SLAPP law or a claim for publication of private facts.

First Amendment Defense

Perhaps the most interesting feature of the revised bill is an expedited process for handling defenses based on the First Amendment or its Hawaii counterpart, i.e., Hawaii Constitution, Article I, Section 4 (the revised bill does not cite specifically to Section 4, which is the section that parallels the First Amendment, so the expedited process apparently applies to a defense based on any portion of Article I is raised).  The basic idea is to give first priority to resolving questions of the constitutionality of enforcing the Act in a particular situation.

Here’s how the expedited process works.  If the defendant files a motion to dismiss a claim for violation of the Act based on First Amendment/Article I grounds, the case basically comes to a halt until the motion is decided.  The court cannot look outside the allegations in the pleadings to decide the motion, and all discovery is suspended until the motion is decided.  The court must hold a hearing and rule on the motion on an expedited basis.  If the court denies the motion, the defendant may immediately appeal the denial.

The revised bill also flips the burden of proof.  When the defendant files a motion to dismiss based on a First Amendment/Article I defense, the plaintiff has the burden to prove that, more likely than not, the plaintiff’s “claim is [not] barred by a defense based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or article I of the Hawaii State Constitution” (note that the quoted language in the revised bill omits the word “not”; that’s probably a typo).  If the defendant wins the motion, it can recover damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, punitive damages, and other sanctions against the plaintiff and even the attorneys and law firm representing the plaintiff.

Thoughts on the Revised Bill

The revised bill is much better than the original version.  I’m still not convinced, though, that the solution to the problem of overzealous paparazzi is a new law.  Hawaii already recognizes the privacy tort of inclusion into seclusion, and that seems to cover the type of intrusion addressed in the concept of “constructive invasion of privacy.”  The tort of intrusion into seclusion does not require a physical invasion into the plaintiff’s personal space.  The use of visual or auditory enhancing equipment to remotely gain access to the plaintiff’s private affairs would seem already covered under existing law.  Creating a new law to deal with the issue would add little new benefits while potentially creating more problems.

Take the expedited process for dealing with First Amendment issues, for example.  According to a Standing Committee Report, the expedited process was created in response to constitutional concerns about the Act.  As a lawyer who represents media defendants, I welcome extra procedural protections for airing out First Amendment issues.  But I do think the expedited process is somewhat sloppy.  The process gives too much incentive to a defendant to respond initially to a Tyler Act claim with First Amendment defenses, even unmeritorious ones.  The defendant has nothing to lose and everything to gain by using such a tactic.  By filing a motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds, the defendant can freeze discovery in the case, shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff, and potentially reap the benefit of recovering fees, costs, and damages from the plaintiff, his or her attorney, and even the attorneys’ law firm!  There are few circumstances in which a defendant should not raise a First Amendment defense.  And on the flip side, true victims of constructive invasion of privacy might think twice before suing under Tyler Act due to the risks involved.  Which again begs the question: Do we really need the Tyler Act?

In closing arguments to the jury at the O.J. Simpson murder trial, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran famously quipped, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  Plaintiff’s attorneys looking to add a Stored Communications Act (SCA) claim to their complaint would do well to heed Cochran’s advice.  There have been a rash of cases dismissing ill-fitted SCA claims (see my recent posts here and here).  Castle Megastore Group, Inc. v. Wilson is the latest.

Castle Megastore Group, Inc. (CMG) sued its former employees for allegedly sharing confidential company information with other companies while they were still employed at CMG.  CMG claimed that Flynn, who was employed by CMG as its “Social Media Specialist,” violated the SCA by posting a video of a confidential CMG managers meeting on Vimeo, a third party website, and sending co-workers the link to the video and the password to his personal Vimeo account.

This scenario didn’t fit into within the prohibitions of the SCA, the court said.  CMG argued that Vimeo was an “electronic communication service” within the meaning of the SCA, that the defendants knew the video contained confidential content before accessing it, and that Flynn lacked authority to give others access to the video.  The court agreed that Vimeo is an electronic communication service, but Vimeo is where Flynn shared the video, not where he obtained it.  The CMG did not allege that Flynn obtained the video through unauthorized access to a CMG-owned electronic communication service.  Flynn was authorized to grant access to his personal Vimeo account.  Sharing a link and password to that account did not violate the SCA, the court ruled.

LegalTXTS Lesson:  Read the SCA carefully before making a claim under it.  Understand how the various concepts in the statute (like “access,” “without authorization,” “facility,” and “electronic communication service”) fit together.  Just because one or more of the concepts is present in a given situation doesn’t mean you’ve a viable SCA claim.

Optiver sued its former employees in Australia for allegedly stealing its proprietary source code and using the code to start a competing company, Tibra.  The Australian court allowed Tibra to conduct discovery of emails from Google after finding Tibra’s discovery responses inadequate.  Optiver subpoenaed Google to produce documents relating to emails and Google Talk messages containing the terms “PGP” or “Optiver.”  Tibra moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the Optiver was improperly requesting the content of communications in violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA).

Optiver countered with three arguments.  First, “PGP” is the name of an encryption system, not content.  Second, Optiver said that it wanted the documents not to discover the substance of the communications, but to locate communications that might be relevant to the foreign litigation.  Third, if the email has been encrypted through PGP, Optiver cannot access the content without the proper encryption key and pass phrase, which it did not have.  The court was unpersuaded.  Content is content, no matter how insignificant, the court said.  The words “PGP” or “Optiver” in the body of a message qualify as content that the SCA protects.

Optiver also argued that subject lines of email communications and Google Talk messages are not protected by the SCA and should be disclosed.  Wrong again, the court said.  The subject line is “nothing less than a pithy summary of the message’s content.”  For support, the court pointed to the legislative history of the SCA.

A federal court in Louisiana recently ruled that a hacking and “sexting” victim could not sue under the Stored Communications Act (SCA).  The plaintiff (Navarro) visited a cell phone store and accepted the offer from a Verizon sales associate to try a new cell phone model for two weeks.  Navarro later returned the trial phone to the store and had a different Verizon sales associate (Stillwell) transfer data from the trial phone back to her phone.  After leaving the store, she received a message on her phone from an unknown number.  The message contained nude photographs of Navarro that she had taken using her phone’s camera.  When Navarro’s mother confronted the manager of the cell phone store, Stillwell admitted that he copied the photos from Navarro’s phone for his own use and accidentally sent them to Navarro from his phone.

Navarro sued Verizon and the cell phone for violating the SCA, among other theories.  She inadvertently omitted a claim for punitive damages under the SCA, however, and asked the court for permission to add such a claim.  The defendants argued that the claim would be futile because a personal cell phone is not a “facility” under the SCA.  Liability under the SCA requires the unauthorized intentional access of “a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided” to obtain, alter, or prevent “authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system.”  18 U.S.C. § 2701(a).

The court agreed with the defendants.  In a Fifth Circuit case, the court concluded that the SCA envisions regulation of network service providers (like Verizon).  A home computer of an end user does not qualify for SCA protection.  Relying on that case, the court ruled that a personal cell phone is not a “facility.”  While a cell phone enables the use of an electronic communication service, it is not itself such a service.  The information stored on a cell phone therefore is not in “electronic storage.”  Navarro suggested that the defendants might have copied her photographs from a “cloud based” storage system run by Verizon, but there was no evidence of that, so the court rejected the theory.  Navarro was denied permission to add a punitive damages claim under the SCA.

Can your business competitor use your name to promote itself and never mention your name to the public?  Keyword advertising makes that possible.  A competitor can bid on keyword search terms consisting of your company name to make links to its website appear whenever a person searches for your name on the Internet.  A law firm that fell prey to such an advertising strategy decided to sue its competitor for violating its publicity rights, which is a form of invasion of privacy.

Robert Habush and Daniel Rottier are shareholders in Habush Habush & Rottier, a well-known personal injury law firm in Wisconsin.  Another Wisconsin law firm also specializing in personal injury law, Cannon & Dunphy (C&D), bid on the keyword search terms “Habush” and “Rottier” through Google, Yahoo!, and Bing.  As a result, when a person searched for “Habush” or “Rottier” in one of the three search engines, links to C&D’s website would appear at the top of the list of “sponsored” results, i.e., those links produced by keywords that been bid on and paid for by advertisers.  Sponsored results generally appear above the “organic results” generated by the search engine’s algorithm.

Habush and Rottier sued C&D for violating Wisconsin’s invasion of privacy statute.  Under the statute, a person’s privacy could be invaded  by “[t]he use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, of the name . . . of any living person, without having first obtained the written consent of the person . . . .”  The main question was whether C&D engaged in a “use” of Habush and Rottier’s names.

Habush and Rottier argued that any attempt to benefit from the commercial or other value of a person’s name or image is a “use.”  Under this interpretation, C&D “used” the names of Habush and Rottier.  C&D countered that the statute covers only “use” that is visible to the public.  Under that perspective, bidding on names for keyword advertising purposes is not a “use” because the public does not see the use of the names.

The court found both interpretations reasonable, but adopted C&D’s interpretation.  The court held back from ruling that unauthorized use of a name can never be an invasion of privacy unless the use is visible to the public, but it agreed with C&D that bidding on a competitor’s name to get one’s ad placed near links to the competitor’s website in search results is not a violation of the competitor’s publicity rights.

The court analogized competitive keyword advertising to “proximity advertising.”  Examples of proximity advertising include: a new car dealership opens across the street from an established car dealership; a business advertises on billboards next to a competitor’s billboards; a lawyer places a Yellow Pages ad near the phone listing of competing lawyers.  Although a competitor is trying to take advantage of the name of an established business in each of these scenarios, none involves an impermissible “use”, such as when a competitor puts the name of an established business in its ad or on its product.  The court similarly did not see a problem with using a third party—in this case, a search engine—to engage in proximity advertising.

LegalTXTS Notes: This is a pretty novel case because most competitive keyword advertising cases are based on theories of trademark infringement or dilution.  Since Habush and Rottier are personal names, they might not have acquired sufficient second secondary meaning to qualify for trademark protection, so publicity rights was invoked as a creative alternative.

Hawai‘i has its own publicity rights statute, so would the outcome have been different had the lawsuit been filed in Hawai‘i?  Hawai‘i courts have not had the occasion to interpret the statute, but if you buy the reasoning of the court in Habush, the answer is probably not.  The Hawai‘i statute is similar enough to the Wisconsin statute for the logic of Habush to apply.

As a partner in a law firm (and therefore a business owner), I’m not sure how I feel about Habush.  I think the court rightly rejected the interpretation that any attempt to benefit from the commercial value of a person’s qualifies as a violation of publicity rights.  That’s a pretty broad proposition.  But something about the decision makes it hard to swallow.  There’s an element of deception the court doesn’t adequately address.  I wonder if, instead of claiming violation of publicity rights, Habush and Rottier could have sued under an unfair competition theory.

A Nevada federal court held that Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunity barred state tort claims asserted in a lawsuit involving the dissemination of sports betting information.  The court’s holding was based on a liberal interpretation of what it means to be a “publisher” or “speaker” under section 230 of the CDA.

Stevo Design, Inc. (Stevo) sells licenses for access to its sports betting reports.  SBR operates a website with a discussion forum where users may post messages relating to sports betting and handicapping and to send messages to other users.  SBR encourages activity on its website by awarding loyalty points to users for doing different things on the website, including posting original content.  The loyalty points may be redeemed for credits at offshore gambling websites.  Stevo claimed that SBR and its users published Stevo’s protected works on the SBR website without obtaining a license.

In addition to bringing claims for copyright and trademark infringement, Stevo asserted a slew of state-law claims against SBR.  SBR asked the court to dismiss these state-law claims.  The court first determined if SBR qualified for CDA immunity.  The key question was whether SBR had a hand in developing the online content at issue.  If so, then SBR does not enjoy CDA immunity.

Relying on Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roomates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), the court concluded that SBR did not “develop” the offending online content.  SBR encouraged its users to post original content.  It did not specifically encourage its users to publish information illegally on the website.  The fact that SBR users could freely contribute loyalty points to each other further evidenced the minimal role that SBR played in monitoring the content of forum posts.  That SBR “sporadically” tried to eliminate infringing content did not persuade the court that SBR was a developer of unlawful content—the CDA allows interactive computer services to perform some editing of user-generated content without becoming liable for all unlawful messages they do not edit or delete.

Having determined that SBR qualified for CDA immunity, the court next considered the impact of immunity on the state-law claims.  CDA immunity effectively precludes the operator of the interactive computer service from being considered the “publisher or speaker” of user-generated content.  As a result, only claims requiring the defendant to be the “publisher or speaker” are barred by CDA immunity.  Applying the meaning of “publisher or speaker” status liberally, the court concluded that CDA immunity barred each of the state-law claims:

Misappropriation of trade secrets: Misappropriation involves either “acquisition” or “disclosure” of a trade secret.  The court easily found that “disclosure” of trade secrets through user posts on the SBR website to require there to have been publishing or “speaking.  The court found “acquisition” to be a closer question, but the only kind of acquisition alleged in the complaint involved user posts on the SBR website, so the CDA barred that kind of misappropriation as well.

Misappropriation of licensable commercial property:  The court is not sure such a claim exists under Florida common law, but assuming it is a form of misappropriation, the plaintiff must have suffered competitive injury due to the defendant’s taking of information.  Stevo alleged that SBR injured it giving away its copyrighted information for free.  The only way SBR could have done that was by disclosing the information, i.e., it acted as a publisher or speaker.

Contributory misappropriation of licensable commercial property:  This claim merely required that SBR induced others to speak or publish.  The court refused to allow circumvention of CDA by alleging that the defendant induced publication or speech instead of itself doing the publishing or speaking.  Since SBR did not tell users what kind of information to include in their posts or encourage infringing content, it enjoyed immunity from this claim.

Civil theft:  Common law theft is defined as obtaining or using the property of another with intent to appropriate the property to his or her unauthorized use.  The only plausible way SBR procured or used Stevo’s property was through publication.  This claim is barred.

Tortious interference with contractual relations:  This claim requires interference with a business relationship.  The only interference that could be inferred from the complaint involved SBR’s publication of Stevo’s works.  As this claim depended on SBR’s status as the publisher, it is barred.

Two Hawaii bills that would ban employers from requesting employees or job applicants to disclose access information to their personal Internet accounts moved forward today.  The House committee on Labor and Public Employment voted to recommend passage of HB713 with the amendments reflected in the HD1 version of the bill.  HD1 amended the original bill to replace the term “social media” with “personal account”; define “personal account”; place the new legislation under the employment practices statute, HRS chapter 378; create an exception for law enforcement agencies conducting background checks of applicants for employment).  HB713 now goes to the House Judiciary committee for review.

SB207, a companion bill to HB713, was also recommended for passage with amendments by the Senate committee on Technology & the Arts.

Cartoon from written testimony on SB465 by Ozzy Osbourne, 2/6/13

The final fate of the Tyler Act remains uncertain, but now that it’s taken an important step forward, I thought I’d share my thoughts on the bill in its current form.  (The Tyler Act isn’t exactly related to technology law, but I’m blogging about it because I also practice in First Amendment, privacy, and media law.)

It’s important to understand that the Tyler Act mimics California’s anti-paparazzi law (which is currently facing its own legal challenges).  As much as legal commentators panned the California law, the Tyler Act should attract its fair share of criticism, if not more, because its language is much more loose and vague.  And that’s not good when it comes to writing a law.  You know the Aerosmith song “I Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing”?  Well, there are quite a few things the Tyler Act misses.  Here are some examples.

The centerpiece of the California law is the creation of a new tort called “constructive invasion of privacy.”  This kind of invasion of privacy is “constructive” in that it doesn’t require the defendant to have physically trespassed onto the plaintiff’s property.  Use of a “visual or auditory enhancing device” is enough.  So, a person using a telephoto zoom lens to snap pictures of J-Lo on the balcony of her home could be liable for invasion of privacy without having stepped foot onto J-Lo’s property.  The idea is that use of devices to intrude into someone’s private space is just as invasive as physically entering into their space.

The Tyler Act uses the term “constructive invasion of privacy,” but it doesn’t exactly track the theory behind the tort.  Here’s the main liability section of the Tyler Act:

A person is liable for a civil action of constructive invasion of privacy if the person captures or intends to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, through any means a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person while that person is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

See any reference to “visual or auditory enhancing device”?  There is none.  The Tyler Act says a person could commit a constructive invasion of privacy “through any means.”  A cheapie disposal camera would do it.  So would the audio recording app on your iPhone.  And if devices lacking in any “enhancement” feature do the trick to capture a “visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person,” query whether there was an invasion of personal space, constructive or otherwise.  (Note that if an invasion into private space truly occurred, even in the absence of a physical invasion, Hawai‘i law already provides a remedy through the common law tort of intrusion into seclusion, which is a form of invasion of privacy.)

But the problems with the Tyler Act don’t stop there.  The Act applies when the plaintiff is engages in a “personal or familial activity.”  That language also appears in the California law, which is defined as “intimate details of the plaintiff’s personal life, interactions with the plaintiff’s family or significant others, or other aspects of the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns.”  Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(l).  The definition excludes “illegal or otherwise criminal activity ….”  The meaning of “personal or familial definition” is pretty vague even with that definition, but at least the California law includes a definition.  The Tyler Act doesn’t!  It’s anyone’s guess what “personal or familiar activity” means under the Tyler Act.

Similarly, the Tyler Act doesn’t define “offensive” or “reasonable expectation of privacy.”  Nor does it contain an exception for publicizing matters of “legitimate public concern,” unlike the California law.  This is problematic because it imposes liability for conduct not remotely resembling the opportunistic antics of paparazzi.  Suppose a celebrity’s Kauai mansion catches on fire, spreading flames to her neighbor’s homes.  The celebrity rushes out to the sidewalk with her kids, watching as firefighters put out the blaze.  A photojournalist arrives on the scene and takes a picture of the celebrity and her kids from across the street.  He then sells the photo to a local daily newspaper, which uses it alongside a front-page article about the fire.  That’s hardly TMZ-style content, but under the vague language of the Tyler Act, the photojournalist and newspaper could be sued for constructive invasion of privacy.

Now, you might ask, why would the newspaper be liable?  That’s because the Tyler Act says:

Any person who transmits, publishes, broadcasts, sells, offers for sale, uses any visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression, or who subsequently retransmits, republishes, rebroadcasts, resells, reoffers to sell, or reuses any visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression that was taken or captured in violation of this section shall constitute a violation of this section if:

(1)  The person had actual knowledge that the visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression was taken or captured in violation of this section; and

(2)  The person received compensation, consideration, or remuneration, monetary or otherwise, for the rights to the unlawfully obtained visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression.

(Emphasis added)

Imposing liability for publishing information obtained in violation of the Tyler Act runs into First Amendment problems.  Under Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment protects speech that publishes the contents of a communication that was illegally intercepted as long as the publisher itself did nothing illegal to obtain the communication.  See Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).  Even more troubling is the Tyler Act’s authorization of courts to issue injunctions against future violations of the Act.  Since publication of information obtained in violation of the Tyler Act could itself violate the Act, a court could literally issue an order “halting the presses.”  That’s called a prior restraint, which is regarded by courts as the most offensive of First Amendment violations.

There are other problems with the way the Tyler Act is written – like the absence of an exception to liability for actions taken in a legitimate law enforcement investigation, or the fact that the Act is not limited to actions taken in Hawai‘i (unlike the California anti-paparazzi law, whose applicability is limited to actions within California) – but I think the point is made well enough.  Although the Tyler Act is well-intentioned, more thought and care needs to go into making it a clear, constitutional law that doesn’t inadvertently turn well-meaning fans, reporters, and publishers into law-breakers.

Scorpiniti v. Fox Television Studios, Inc. is the latest case involving use of Internet popularity to prove infringement of a trademark or trade dress.  In this case filed in Iowa’s federal district court, the plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that a sudden rise in the number of hits on a YouTube page bearing the mark in question is evidence of “actual confusion.”

The plaintiff, Louis J. Scorpiniti (Scorpiniti) registered the mark “THE GATE” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for use in relation to “television broadcasing.”  In 2007, Scorpiniti was developing his own religious-themed music television show, The Gate.  Scorpiniti created a website for the show and completed a pilot (which he posted on YouTube) and the first episode (which he posted on his Facebook page).  He never broadcasted his show on TV.

Fox Television Studios, Inc. (Fox) filed an application with the USPTO to register the mark “THE GATES” for use in relation to a new TV series, “The Gates”, about a police officer who moves into gated community inhabited by supernatural beings.  Scorpiniti initially filed a Petition for Opposition to Fox’s mark, but later withdrew the petition and chose instead to sue Fox for trademark infringement.  The Gates aired on ABC stations from June to September of 2010.

To prove infringement, Scorpiniti had to show that Fox’s use of THE GATES “creates a likelihood of confusion” between the two TV programs.  One of the factors relevant to determining if there is “likelihood of confusion” is evidence of actual confusion.

The pilot episode of The Gate that Scorpiniti posted on YouTube experienced a spike in the number of views during the summer of 2010 when ABC was advertising The Gates.  Scorpiniti argued that this was evidence of actual confusion.  The court disagreed.  Also unpersuasive to the court was the fact that a Google search of the term “abc the gate” yielded results in which Fox’s TV show was misspelled as “The Gate.”  Spelling errors in an internet search or the fact that someone stumbles upon Scorpiniti’s YouTube video due to a search illustrates inattentiveness or carelessness on the part of the searcher, not actual confusion, the court said.  Any viewer who mistakenly viewed the pilot episode of The Gate while searching for The Gates would be able to tell that the two shows come from different sources based on differences in their appearance, content and production value.