Category: Communication Media & Internet

Federal Communications Commission Tackles the “Reassigned Number Problem”

Reassigned numbers have been at the center of the surge in litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) during the last few years.  By now the story is well known to businesses that actively communicate with their customers: the customer consents to receive telemarketing and/or informational robocalls[1] at a wireless telephone number, but months or years later the customer changes his or her wireless telephone number and—unbeknownst to the business—the telephone number is reassigned to a different person.  When the recipient of the reassigned number starts receiving calls or messages from the business, a lawsuit often ensues under the TCPA because that party has not consented to receive such calls.  The FCC adopted on July 13 a Second Notice of Inquiry (“Second NOI”) that promises to address this problem in a meaningful way.  Specifically, the Second NOI focuses on the feasibility of “using numbering information to create a comprehensive resource that businesses can use to identify telephone numbers that have been reassigned from a consumer who has consented to receiving calls to a consumer who has not.”

Background on the Reassigned Number Problem

Under the current regime, the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) Administrator generally provides telephone numbers to voice service providers—including those who supply interconnected voice—in blocks of 1000.  The voice service providers recycle those numbers in and out of service, such that, after a number has been dropped, the number goes into a pool for a short period and then is brought out of the pool and reassigned to a different consumer.

The “reassigned number problem” occurs when a consumer consents to receive robocalls (telemarketing and/or informational), but then terminates service to the relevant wireless number without informing the businesses the consumer previously gave consent to make the robocalls.  Businesses that find themselves making robocalls to numbers that (unbeknownst to them) had been reassigned to a different consumer increasingly find themselves subject to lawsuits under the TCPA—this even though it has been widely acknowledged that (1) customers often switch telephone numbers without providing notice to businesses and (2) there is no public directory of reassigned wireless numbers that businesses can rely on to identify and scrub reassigned numbers.  When various industry groups and business entities asked the FCC to intervene, the FCC clarified that businesses making robocalls needed the consent of “the actual party who receives a call,” not of the intended recipient of the robocall.  FCC created a so-called “safe harbor” that afforded little protection in practice: a business could make a single call to a reassigned number without triggering liability under the TCPA, but the business would then be imputed with “constructive” knowledge that the number had been reassigned even if the single call did not yield actual confirmation that the number had been reassigned. The FCC did so even as it admitted that the tools available to identify reassigned numbers “will not in every case identify numbers that have been reassigned” and that the steps it was taking “may not solve the problem in its entirety” even “where the caller is taking ongoing steps reasonably designed to discover reassignments and to cease calls.”

The Second NOI

The Second NOI promises to more meaningfully address the reassigned number problem by suggesting the creation of a reliable, complete list of reassigned numbers that service providers would be required to update.  In pertinent part, the Second NOI addresses a number of other topics, including, but not limited to, possible reporting alternatives, compensation schemes, frequency of updates, and fees and eligibility requirements for accessing reassigned number data.  It also asks a number of logistical questions, including, but not limited to:

(1) What are the ways in which voice service providers could report the information in an accurate and timely way?

(2) Would the reporting—into a database or other platform—“substantially improve robocallers’ ability to identify reassigned numbers?”

(3) What information should voice service providers report?

(4) In what ways might the information reported raise concerns regarding the disclosure of private, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information?

(5) Should reassignment of toll-free numbers also be reported?

(6) What is the quantity of numbers reassigned and the benefits of reducing unwanted calls to these numbers?

(7) Should there be a safe harbor from TCPA violations for robocallers who use the new reassigned number resource?  What would be the advantages and disadvantages?

(8) How can the FCC incentivize robocallers to use the reassigned number resource?

In addition, the Second NOI seeks comment on whether the notification requirement should apply to all voice service providers or just providers of wireless services, and how to “balance the reporting burden placed on voice service providers against consumers’ privacy interests and robocallers’ interest in learning of reassignments.”   The item also seeks comment on which entity should be responsible for notification in circumstances when a voice service provider does not receive numbers directly from NANP, but instead obtains numbers “indirectly” from carrier partners.

The Commission claims it has the authority under Sections 227(b) and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended—which give the FCC control over the US portion of NANP and incorporate the TCPA—to require entities that obtain numbers from NANP to also report reassignments.  In fact, the Commission claims that doing so may further the statutory goals underlying the TCPA, which generally prohibits unwanted robocalls.

Although many details remain to be discussed and addressed by the FCC, the creation of the list that the FCC is proposing would address one of the main challenges faced by businesses that want to comply with the TCPA: how to gather reliable and complete information regarding which wireless telephone numbers have been reassigned.  The possibility of such a list working similar to that available to identify telephone numbers in the Do Not Call List is particularly promising, especially if it comes accompanied by safe harbor provisions similar to those attached to the Do Not Call List obligations in the FCC’s rules.

Comments are due August 28, 2017 and Reply Comments September 26, 2017.

[1] For purposes of this post “robocalls” refers to both calls made using an automatic telephone dialing system or using an artificial voice or pre-recorded message.

This post was contributed by Eduardo R. Guzmán  Paul C. Besozzi  and Koyulyn K. Miller of   Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more legal analysis check out the National Law Review.

FCC Slams Serial Robocaller With $120 Million Proposed Fine for “Spoofing” Numbers

We all get them.  Repeated marketing calls to our mobile and home phones with the incoming phone number altered to make it appear that it’s a local call, when in fact, the call is from a robo-scammer using IP technology to “spoof” the phone number.  As it turns out, there’s a federal law that makes such spoofing illegal, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 (“TICIDA”), and in its first enforcement action under TICIDA, the FCC hit an alleged serial robocaller, Adrian Abramovich and his companies (together, Abramovich) with a whopping $120 million Notice of Apparent Liability for allegedly originating nearly 100 million such calls.

The Commission also issued a Citation and Order to Abramovich for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) for making unauthorized prerecorded telemarketing calls to emergency phone lines, wireless phones and residential phones without obtaining the required prior express written consent from the called party.  While TICIDA allows the Commission to directly fine first-time violators through its NAL authority, which it did here, in TCPA FCC enforcement actions involving entities and individuals that do not hold Commission authorizations, the Commission must first issue a citation, and then can only proceed with a fine if the recipient repeats the violation.  That still leaves Abramovich open to potentially monumental TCPA class action exposure.   The Citation and Order also notified Abromovich that he had violated the federal wire fraud statute by transmitting or causing to be transmitted, by means of wire, misleading or false statements with the intent to perpetrate a fraud.

According to the Commission, Abramovich ran a scheme where his spoofed calls appeared to originate from local numbers and offered, via a pre-recorded message, holiday vacations and cruises claiming to be associated with well-known American travel and hospitality companies.  The pre-recorded messages would prompt customers to “press 1” to secure their reservation.  Once a customer pressed “1”, the customer was transferred to a call center where live operators pushed vacation packages typically involving timeshare presentations, that were not affiliated with the well-known brands used in the recorded messages.  The Commission characterized Abramovich’s schemes as “one of the largest – and most dangerous – illegal robocalling campaigns the Commission has ever investigated.”  According to the Commission, in addition to defrauding consumers, the robocalling campaign also caused disruptions to an emergency medical paging service, which provides paging services for emergency room doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders.

While significant in absolute terms, the $120 million proposed fine, according to the Commission, was significantly below the penalty that could have been proposed in the NAL.  Rather than fine the statutory maximum of $11,052 for each spoofing violation, or three times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, the Commission calculated the base forfeiture amount at $1,000 per unlawful spoofed call, since this was the first time the Commission used its TICIDA forfeiture authority.

Mr. Abromovitz now has an opportunity to respond to both the NAL and Citation.  Stopping illegal robocalling has been a key priority for Chairman Pai, and no doubt the Commission is expecting that the threat of huge monetary forfeiture penalties against the industry will provide a powerful incentive for roboscammers to look for other ways to make a buck.  Given the Commission’s struggle with fashioning tools to go after serial robocallers that do not have the effect of increasing TCPA exposure for established companies engaging in legitimate customer communications, we do not expect the Commission to back down from its proposed penalty, and expect this to be the start of a new enforcement initiative using TICIDA and its direct penalty provisions.

This post was written byRebecca E. Jacobs,  Martin L. Stern and  Douglas G. Bonner of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

States Deserve A Complete Picture In Evaluating FirstNet/AT&T Coverage Plans

FirstNet recently selected AT&T as its partner to build, operate and maintain the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (“NPSBN”).  With AT&T leading the charge, network development appears to be on a fast track. In early June, the initial AT&T/FirstNet Radio Access Network (“RAN”) or coverage plans were made available electronically to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and territories of the United States (referred to as the “states” for purposes of this article). After a brief period for review, comment and consultations, the plans will be finalized and the Governor of each state must decide whether to accept the FirstNet plan or to seek an alternative coverage model through the state’s own Request For Proposal (“RFP”) process.

In evaluating its options, the goal of every state should be to obtain the best possible network coverage for its First Responders. The safety of First Responders and the public must be the primary concern in evaluating the AT&T/FirstNet plan. In order to conduct a reasonably thorough examination, the Governors and their teams must have access to the necessary financial, technical and legal information regarding AT&T’s commitments to deliver the NPSBN.

However, the states currently face a major obstacle in conducting their analysis. They do not have access to the underlying contract between AT&T and FirstNet. There have been numerous trade press reports and FirstNet/AT&T presentations about what the AT&T proposed roll-out will entail (e.g. access to the entire AT&T network, public safety usage targets, priority and preemption). However, no one from a state government is privy to the specific terms of the FirstNet/AT&T agreement. As with most agreements the “devil is in the details,” but the states cannot access the details.

There are countless issues involved in the review of state plans that turn on the conditions of the underlying FirstNet/AT&T contract. For example, how much of the statutory requirement for rural coverage can be satisfied through “deployables” as opposed to permanent hardened infrastructure under the terms of the contract? What is the specific long-term commitment to support discounted pricing for public safety use? Is there a mechanism in place to resolve any disputes that may arise between FirstNet and AT&T.

A fundamental question is whether there is an option for AT&T to “opt-out” of the contract with FirstNet if it fails to obtain a certain number of states “opting-in” or for any other reason. Another basic issue pertains to the penalties that AT&T may have to pay if it fails to meet certain levels of public safety use or “adoption” on the network. Without firsthand knowledge of the AT&T/FirstNet agreement, there is no way of knowing with certainty if there are caveats or conditions that could limit such a requirement?  What happens to the spectrum if there is zero public safety adoption in a given area or insufficient adoption on a nationwide basis? These are significant questions to which states are entitled to an answer.

For AT&T and FirstNet to simply address these and other critical questions an on ad hoc basis is not a prudent approach. The only way a full evaluation of whether the needs and objectives of public safety are being met is for FirstNet and AT&T to disclose the underlying contract to the states so that they can examine the specific terms of the agreement.

As things now stand, a Governor is being asked to accept a vendor to build and operate the public safety network within his or her state – impacting the lives of First Responders and the public – without firsthand knowledge of the terms under which AT&T will provide the service. FirstNet and AT&T should disclose the terms of their contract pursuant to an appropriately drafted non-disclosure agreement so the Governors and their teams will have a complete picture in reviewing the FirstNet/AT&T coverage plans.

This post was written by Albert J. Catalano of  Keller and Heckman LLP.

Practicing Telemedicine Across State Borders: New Expedited Licenses Permit Physicians to Expand Practice

In a watershed moment for the expansion of telemedicine, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission is now processing applications to allow physicians to practice telemedicine across state lines with greater ease. Nineteen states have passed legislation to adopt the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which allows physicians to obtain a license to practice medicine in any Compact state through a simplified application process.  Under the new system, participating state medical boards retain their licensing and disciplinary authority, but agree to share information essential to licensing, creating a streamlined process.

The Federation of State Medical Boards’ President and CEO, Humayun Chaudhry, DO, MACP, called the Compact a “milestone” for medical regulation in the United States.  “The launch of the Compact will empower interested and eligible physicians to deliver high-quality care across state lines to reach more patients in rural and underserved communities. This is a major win for patient safety and an achievement that will lessen the burden being felt nationwide as a result of our country’s physician shortage.”

States currently participating in the Compact are Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, South Dakota, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Nebraska.  Seven additional states have proposed legislation to adopt the Compact, including Washington, D.C.

Most states require a physician to obtain a license to practice medicine in each state where the patient is located at the time of the physician-patient encounter.  Prior to adoption of the Compact, obtaining licensure in a given state was an oppressive task, requiring the physician to complete lengthy applications, submit required documentation, pay fees, and pass examinations.  This proved to be a burdensome restriction for physicians practicing telemedicine, where patients may be located in any state at the time of the physician-patient encounter.  Licensing requirements were identified as a significant barrier to the expansion of telemedicine, prompting introduction of the Compact.

Physicians are eligible to apply for the Compact license if they possess a full and unrestricted license to practice medicine in a Compact state and have not been disciplined by any state medical board, among other requirements.  To apply, the physician must designate a Compact state as the “state of principal licensure” and select the other Compact states in which they would like to become licensed.  The state of principal licensure will verify the physician’s eligibility and provide credential information to the Interstate Commission.  The Interstate Commission then collects applicable fees and transmits the physician’s information to the additional states, where the licenses will then be granted.

Participation in the Compact creates another pathway for licensure, but does not otherwise change a state’s existing Medical Practice Act.  Physicians located in a state that has not adopted the Compact may still obtain licensure in other states through the ordinary licensure process.

This post was written by Marki Stewart at Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Broadband Internet Service Providers In Regulatory Limbo After Repeal of FCC Privacy and Data Security Rules

data security privacy FCC cybersecurityPotentially signaling the end of the short-lived stint by the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) to regulate consumer data privacy on the internet, the Trump Administration recently repealed Obama-era data privacy and security rules for broadband providers.  The action, passed by Congress and signed by President Trump pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, completely rescinds the rules that would have gone into effect later this year.  While the move has been welcomed by industry insiders, it leaves broadband providers in regulatory limbo as the Trump Administration seeks to determine which agency and what rules will oversee data protection in this sector going forward.

The FCC’s Privacy Order and Its Repeal

In November 2016, the FCC released comprehensive consumer privacy and data security rules (the “2016 Privacy Order”) for broadband internet access service (“BIAS”) providers.1  BIAS providers offer consumers high-speed, continuous access to the internet, typically through cable, telephone, wireless, or fiber-optic connections.  They are different from entities such as Amazon and Facebook, which do not provide connections to the internet but rather offer internet services such as cloud storage, messaging, news, video streaming, and online shopping and are regulated, with respect to data privacy matters, by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).

The 2016 Privacy Order would have, among other things, required BIAS providers to obtain affirmative customer consent (“opt-in” consent) prior to using and sharing, for commercial purposes, confidential customer data, such as a user’s web browsing history, application usage history, or geo-location information, and prohibited them from refusing to serve customers who did not provide such consent.  It also required BIAS providers to adopt “reasonable measures” to protect customer data from unauthorized disclosure, and required them to give notice to customers affected by any data breach “without unreasonable delay” but not later than 30 days after determining that a breach had occurred.

Repeal of the 2016 Privacy Order comes as a welcome development for industry groups, which vigorously opposed them both prior to and subsequent to their finalization.  In January 2017, the FCC received multiple petitions to reconsider and stay the order.2  The BIAS industry complained that some of the new rules – particularly the opt-in rule for the use of sensitive customer information – put BIAS providers at a competitive disadvantage because the rules were more restrictive than FTC rules that applied to other internet entities such as Amazon and Facebook and, further, would have required costly updates to BIAS providers’ systems.  In response, the FCC – now with a Chairman appointed by President Trump and a majority of Republican-appointed commissioners – reversed course and, on March 1, 2017, voted to stay some of the provisions of the 2016 Privacy Order that had been due to come into effect.3  Shortly thereafter, Congress and President Trump used their authority under the Congressional Review Act to completely rescind the 2016 Privacy Order.4

Is Net Neutrality Next?

To answer the question of where the Trump Administration might go from here first requires an explanation of how the FCC came to be responsible for regulating data privacy and security for BIAS providers in the first place.

Until 2015, BIAS providers, like other internet service and content providers, were not considered to be “common carriers” by the FCC and, thus, were not subject to data privacy regulation by the FCC.  Instead, for matters concerning data privacy and protection, BIAS providers looked to the FTC.  That changed in 2015, when the FCC issued the “Open Internet Order,”5 which reclassified BIAS providers as “telecommunications services” and, therefore, subjected them to common carrier regulation by the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (“Title II”).  Among other things, Title II requires “telecommunications services” to furnish services to customers “upon reasonable request” and prohibits “unjust and unreasonable discrimination” in the services that common carriers provide.  Title II further provides that “telecommunications services” have a duty to protect the privacy of customer data.6

This reclassification was necessary for the FCC to promote and establish, as the centerpiece of the Open Internet Order, “net neutrality” rules for BIAS Providers.  “Net neutrality” rules require BIAS providers to allow users equal access to all otherwise lawful internet websites, content, and services, without favoring or restricting access, whether the websites are owned or controlled by the service providers’ affiliates, business partners, or competitors.  For example, absent net neutrality rules, a BIAS provider might, in exchange for a fee or other consideration, agree with a video sharing website, such as YouTube, to provide its customers with faster and better access to YouTube than to a rival video sharing website, such as Vimeo.

Previous attempts by the FCC to impose net neutrality rules on BIAS providers had been rejected by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Most recently, in 2014, the D.C. Circuit held that the FCC did not have the authority to impose net neutrality rules on BIAS providers because they were not subject to the common carrier rules under Title II.7  In response, the FCC reclassified BIAS providers as common carriers in its Open Internet Order.  The 2016 Privacy Order was an attempt by the FCC to further define the data privacy and protection rules that applied to BIAS providers under Title II.

The Trump Administration now seeks to return the BIAS industry to privacy oversight by the FTC, as both the current FCC and FTC Chairpersons have indicated that “jurisdiction over broadband providers’ privacy and data security practices should be returned to the FTC, the nation’s expert agency with respect to these important subjects.”8  However, this is easier said than done, as it would require that the FCC revoke the Open Internet Order and its accompanying net neutrality rules.  Such a move would be favored by the BIAS industry and the new Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, who regards the net neutrality rules as a “mistake,”9 but would be met by criticism from many major internet content providers and services, such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook.10

In the meantime, the FTC is without authority to regulate BIAS providers regarding data privacy, as the FTC Act contains an express exemption of FTC jurisdiction for common carriers.11  Further complicating matters is an August 2016 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which interpreted the FTC’s common carrier exemption as including all activities of any entity designated as a common carrier, even those activities that are unrelated to the entity’s common carrier business and which otherwise might be subject to FTC jurisdiction if they were carried out by a separate entity.12  If the Ninth Circuit position were to stand and be adopted by other Circuits – the FTC is currently seeking a rehearing en banc – the FCC suddenly might find itself responsible for regulating a host of non-common carrier related business activities merely because they are provided by entities that have been designated as common carriers under Title II.

Many large BIAS providers have faced this uncertainty by pledging to take “reasonable measures to protect customer information” and notify “consumers of data breaches as appropriate” in accordance with the existing FTC data privacy framework (i.e., ensuring that their data security practices are not “unfair or deceptive” in contravention of Section 5 of the FTC Act).[13]

BIAS providers are also presently subject to a host of state laws concerning data privacy and protection, including at least 48 state data breach notification laws, the most recent of which was enacted in New Mexico.14  These laws typically require businesses to notify the state authorities, affected customers, and major credit reporting agencies when the state’s residents’ confidential personal information, such as social security or driver’s license numbers, credit card numbers, and passwords, have been exposed through a data breach.  In addition, some states, such as Massachusetts15 and California,16 also require businesses to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect customer information.  Finally, some states maintain consumer protection laws, which, similar to the FTC Act, generally protect against unfair or deceptive trade practices and have been used by state attorney generals to penalize companies that fail to protect customer data.17

Conclusion

The Trump Administration’s repeal of the 2016 Privacy Order has provided a respite for the BIAS industry from vigorous new requirements that would have gone into effect this year.  However, it also has created a period of regulatory uncertainty as regulators determine the way forward, including the fate of the Open Internet Order.  In the meantime, BIAS providers should, as they have promised, continue to follow reasonable data privacy and protection practices, consistent at least with those required by the FTC, and also carefully consider whether any other applicable federal or state data privacy laws apply to their business.

ARTICLE BY Peter Carey, Joseph Facciponti, Keith M. Gerver & Joseph V. Moreno of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

© Copyright 2017 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

1 Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 13911 (2016), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf.

2 See, e.g., Joint Petition for Stay, available athttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/101270254521574/012717%20Petition%20for%20Stay.pdf(“Stay Petition”).

3 See Order Granting Stay Petition, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-19A1.pdf.

4 See S.J. Res. 34 – 115th Congress, available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text.

5 See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601 (2015), available athttps://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf.

6 See 47 U.S.C. § 222(a) (“Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to . . . customers.”).

7 See Verizon v. F.C.C., 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

8 See Joint Statement of Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on Protecting Americans’ Online Privacy, available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/03/joint-statement-acting-ftc-chairman-maureen-k-ohlhausen-fcc.

9 See Remarks of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai at the Mobile World Congress (February 28, 2017), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-343646A1.pdf.

10 See Google, Facebook and Amazon write to FCC demanding true net neutrality, The Guardian (May 7, 2014), available athttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/08/google-facebook-and-amazon-sign-letter-criticising-fcc-net-neutrality-plan.

11 See 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2).

12 See F.T.C. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 835 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016).  The FTC has sought rehearing en banc.

13 See Stay Petition, ISP Privacy Principles.

14 See New Mexico H.B. 15, Data Breach Notification Act (2017).

15 See Mass Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 93H, § 2.

16 See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5(b).

17 See, e.g., Press Release, A.G. Schneiderman Announces $100K Settlement with E-Retailer after Data Breach Exposes Over 25K Credit Card Numbers, N.Y. State Attorney General’s Office (Aug. 5, 2016), available at https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-100k-settlement-e-retailer-after-data-breach-exposes-over. 

How to Develop an Effective Law Firm SEO Action Plan for 2017 [WEBINAR]

What used to work in SEO just a few years ago won’t work today.12-must-do-action-steps.png Learn how to make this year your most profitable ever by getting consistent leads from SEO and positioning your firm as thought leaders.

Webinar Hosted By McDougall Interactive & The National Law Review
Tuesday, March 14, 2017 – 3:00pm EST

Join John McDougall from McDougall Interactive and Nicole Minnis, Esq. from The National Law Review for a free 60-minute digital marketing webinar, where you will learn:

  • Step-by-step actions you should take in the next 12 months to substantially increase your revenues.
  • Powerful strategies that are based on the 10,000 keyword study from Searchmetrics, including the latest Google ranking factors including Content, Social Signals, Technical Factors, Backlinks, User Signals, and User Experience
  • Highlights from the Orbit Media study of 1,000 bloggers and what they do to stand out.

Some examples of cutting-edge topics we’ll be discussing (this is way more than just “add keywords” and “add more content”):

  • Why click-through-rate, time-on-site, and bounce rate are more important than ever
  • Why merely having keywords in your meta tags and copy is not nearly enough
  • How the length of your content can affect your search rankings
  • How video and podcasts can enhance your thought leadership and improve your mobile user experience and search rankings at the same time
  • Why links are still significant, especially deep links to inner pages
  • The extremely high correlation between social signals and ranking position
  • How your website load time can directly affect your search rankings, especially on mobile devices

Click here to register now.

This webinar will leave you with 12 must-do action steps for success, based on data from industry leaders, as well as a list of ridiculously great tools you can use to speed up your process and spy on competitors.

In today’s hyper-competitive legal SEO landscape, your either need to do SEO deeply or don’t waste time doing it at all.

Law Firm SEO Action Plan
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

How to Develop an Effective Law Firm SEO Action Plan for 2017 [WEBINAR]

What used to work in SEO just a few years ago won’t work today.12-must-do-action-steps.png Learn how to make this year your most profitable ever by getting consistent leads from SEO and positioning your firm as thought leaders.

Webinar Hosted By McDougall Interactive & The National Law Review
Tuesday, March 14, 2017 – 3:00pm EST

Join John McDougall from McDougall Interactive and Nicole Minnis, Esq. from The National Law Review for a free 60-minute digital marketing webinar, where you will learn:

  • Step-by-step actions you should take in the next 12 months to substantially increase your revenues.
  • Powerful strategies that are based on the 10,000 keyword study from Searchmetrics, including the latest Google ranking factors including Content, Social Signals, Technical Factors, Backlinks, User Signals, and User Experience
  • Highlights from the Orbit Media study of 1,000 bloggers and what they do to stand out.

Some examples of cutting-edge topics we’ll be discussing (this is way more than just “add keywords” and “add more content”):

  • Why click-through-rate, time-on-site, and bounce rate are more important than ever
  • Why merely having keywords in your meta tags and copy is not nearly enough
  • How the length of your content can affect your search rankings
  • How video and podcasts can enhance your thought leadership and improve your mobile user experience and search rankings at the same time
  • Why links are still significant, especially deep links to inner pages
  • The extremely high correlation between social signals and ranking position
  • How your website load time can directly affect your search rankings, especially on mobile devices

Click here to register now.

This webinar will leave you with 12 must-do action steps for success, based on data from industry leaders, as well as a list of ridiculously great tools you can use to speed up your process and spy on competitors.

In today’s hyper-competitive legal SEO landscape, your either need to do SEO deeply or don’t waste time doing it at all.

Law Firm SEO Action Plan
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

 

Happy New Year Begins with Legitimate, Transparent and Trustworthy Media

fake newsIt used to be that news traveled fast, but these days, thanks to technology and social networking, it’s more accurate to say that news travels at record speeds. A news story can literally go viral in seconds. Unfortunately, sometimes these stories are entirely false – and it took a highly contentious presidential election for much of America to realize the distressing and detrimental prevalence of fake news.

Sometimes fake news stories can be detected from a mile away, but sometimes they fool even the most perceptive of readers. As NPR notes here, “…the proliferation of fake news isn’t just the responsibility of the platforms used to spread it. Those who consume news also need to find ways of determining if what they’re reading is true.” What’s the primary indicator? An authentic news story originates from a reputable and substantiated news outlet.

As a marketing and/or legal professional, you must do your homework when a media opportunity arises. Similarly to recognizing bogus news stories, you need to use your best judgment to recognize when interview and byline opportunities are not worthwhile or authentic. Interviewing and writing require valuable time and effort, so you want to ensure that every endeavor will be time and effort well spent with a news organization that is authentic, trusted and relevant in your industry. Otherwise, results could be lackluster and even detrimental. As New Year’s resolutions and goals are being set, what better occasion than now to refresh our understanding of the fundamental indicators of quality, reliable and suitable media opportunities?

The next time you are presented with a media opportunity, spend a few moments conducting some simple due diligence. When an opportunity arises, both for my clients and myself, I examine the following to weigh its value:

  • Website: Reputable and established news organizations run websites that are professional in esthetic and content. They have recognizable domains. Their sites are navigable, attractive and well-organized. They feature up-to-date news items. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself whether you want your name, commentary or original thought leadership to appear on that organization’s page. If the answer is no, then it’s definitely better to pass and hold out for the next opportunity.

  • Media Kit: Media kits are truly a treasure trove of information. They provide details such as a publication’s history, circulation, page views, editorial calendar and – perhaps most importantly – the audience. Who and how many will be exposed to your efforts? If the audience is not ideal for your message, or if numbers appear low, then you should set your sights on a different and more valuable opportunity.

  • Editor or Journalist Background: You can tell a lot about a media professional just by examining his or her professional history and repertoire of work. The beauty of media is that everything is documented. Where did he or she come from? Does the interviewer have established credentials with respected publications? What is his or her writing style – snarky and negative, or sound and informative? What other types of sources do they tend to quote in articles? Reporters are trained to find the story, so if you open yourself up to an interview, you need to make sure that it’s a “story” with no negative repercussions for you, your practice or your firm. Don’t be afraid to ask questions about the angle or direction your interviewer plans to take for his or her piece.

  • Cost: My clients often ask us about pay-to-play media opportunities. Generally speaking, my agency advises against pay-to-play. While advertising most definitely has its place, I strongly encourage and believe in conventional editorial opportunities that are gained through traditional PR methods.

  • Social Media Feeds: Who and what are the organizations/journalists following on social media? As the old adage goes, you are the company you keep. Even digitally! Reputable outlets and media professionals subscribe to other professional feeds.

For 2017, I challenge you to embrace this resolution: Support, read, share and contribute nothing but quality, enriching and authentic news. You, your clients and your colleagues will all reap the benefits. Your time is just that: yours. Make sure it’s spent reading and investing in nothing but the best.

ARTICLE BY Bethany S. Early of Jaffe

© Copyright 2008-2016, Jaffe Associates

Power of Communication in Legal Marketing – The Medium Does Change the Message Part 2

communicationsCommunication is important to almost everything we do–and today, we have more ways to reach out than ever before.  Lee Broekman of Organic Communication and Judith Gordon of LeadeEsQ presented at the LMA Tech1 conference in San Francisco, focusing on empowering communication by understanding the medium. In Part 1 we discussed some of the advantages and challenges of communicating face to face and through print.  In this article, we will examine communication over the phone and panel communication–or any way of communication through a screen.

Phone as a medium is what it sounds like–talking on the telephone either one or one or on a conference call. The danger with this form of communication is all the other things we might be doing while we are on the phone–especially on a conference call–everyone knows how easy it is to click over to email, check Facebook on your smartphone, or start to scribble your to-do list on the paper at your desk. While you are still physically on the call, your attention drifts to the other things on your to do list. This hints at what Gordon calls “the lost art of focus.”  She says, “Today’s attention spans have been radically reduced by our tether to technology. We leap from conversation to conversation—from the person speaking to us to email to headline notifications to texts back to the person speaking—without fully engaging in any one of those communications.” Staying engaged on a phone call, and reminding yourself to be present and aware is important when using the phone as a medium. One way to do this is to make sure the conversation is a back and forth–and not just a series of monologues. Additionally, if the call is a conference call with multiple participants, making sure there is a plan in place, so that each participant has a role, and that ground rules are established and enforced, can help.

Panel refers to any form of communication with a screen between the speaker and the listener.  With technology, this is becoming common–web meetings, webinars and some panels where there is an audience in the room, but also some audience members are tuning in via videoconference.  Gordon says, “Presenters are well served by understanding that their ‘audience’ may be viewing or only listening to a recording at a later point in time, and taking those parameters into account when preparing their presentations.” Going beyond just the people in the room is important–and one way to make sure everyone stays engaged is to have an interactive portion. Another good practice for webinars is to focus on visuals. Broekman says, “When our communication is on a panel, we need to color our black and white text and bulleted lists with vibrant visuals that will captivate our audience and keep them attentive to our intention. Many webinars present dry data instead of information that is new, relevant and interesting. Charismatic conversation, speaker photos and conceptual images in shorter timeframes will go a long way towards making the communication in this channel more effective.”

Another major concern with a panel can be a false sense of distance, and the tendency to feel bold when you cannot see the person you are talking to. This barrier is one reason Internet comment sections can get nasty, and people become callous over social media. These tendencies can be devastating when they seep into professional communications.  Broekman argues, “If you can’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it behind a screen.”

Other pitfalls haunt Panel as a communication method.  Like the phone, placing the screen between people communicating removes the opportunity to see facial expressions and body language.  Gordon says, “When we remove that layer of information, our brains ‘fill in the blanks’ by superimposing our own judgment, which can be devastating.” Additionally, Broekman describes one of the biggest communication problems as a failure to listen with an intention to understanding the speaker. “Instead of listening to what the other person is saying, we listen to our own internal dialogue and filter information through our personal judgments, thoughts, opinions and ideas.”  A screen between parties can only amplify the tendency to hear what we want to hear.  With that said, clarity in transmission is crucial, and consistent checks on understanding are important.  Above all, awareness of the potential for misunderstanding is important.

For attorneys, communication is paramount. Communication is also very complicated. Gordon says, “to put it simply, lawyers ‘speak for’ their clients. Whether in transactional matters or litigation, lawyers are conduits of their clients’ intentions. To fully and accurately represent another—the essence of a lawyer’s work—understanding the fundamentals of communication is essential. Key communication skills—such as the ability to listen, understand, and then accurately present a client’s position to third parties in negotiations or litigation—are essential to a successful practice, and the smooth running of our legal system.”

Click here to read part one: Power of Communication in Legal Marketing – The Medium Does Change the Message Part 1

ARTICLE BY Eilene Spear of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
Copyright ©2016 National Law Forum, LLC

1 Broekman and Gordon spoke at the Legal Marketing Technology Conference on October 6th in San Francisco. Their session was entitled Webinars, Podcasts and Mobile (Oh My!) The Medium Does Change the Message. The LMA Tech conference is the largest conference dedicated to technologies that law firms use to identify, attract and support clients.

President Donald J. Trump – What Lies Ahead for Privacy, Cybersecurity, e-Communication?

President TrumpFollowing a brutal campaign – one laced with Wikileaks’ email dumps, confidential Clinton emails left unprotected, flurries of Twitter and other social media activity – it will be interesting to see how a Trump Administration will address the serious issues of privacy, cybersecurity and electronic communications, including in social media.

Mr. Trump had not been too specific with many of his positions while campaigning, so it is difficult to have a sense of where his administration might focus. But, one place to look is his campaign website where the now President-elect outlined a vision, summarized as follows:

  • Order an immediate review of all U.S. cyber defenses and vulnerabilities by individuals from the military, law enforcement, and the private sector, the “Cyber Review Team.”

  • The Cyber Review Team will provide specific recommendations for safeguarding with the best defense technologies tailored to the likely threats.

  • The Cyber Review Team will establish detailed protocols and mandatory cyber awareness training for all government employees.

  • Instruct the U.S. Department of Justice to coordinate responses to cyber threats.

  • Develop the offensive cyber capabilities we need to deter attacks by both state and non-state actors and, if necessary, to respond appropriately.

There is nothing new here as these positions appear generally to continue the work of prior administrations in the area of cybersecurity. Perhaps insight into President-elect Trump’s direction in these areas will be influenced by his campaign experiences.

Should we expect a tightening of cybersecurity requirements through new statutes and regulations?

Mr. Trump has expressed a desire to reduce regulation, not increase it. However, political party hackings and unfavorable email dumps from Wikileaks, coupled with continued data breaches affecting private and public sector entities, may prompt his administration and Congress to do more. Politics aside, cybersecurity clearly is a top national security threat, and it is having a significant impact on private sector risk management strategies and individual security. Some additional regulation may be coming.

An important question for many, especially for organizations that have suffered a multi-state data breach, is whether we will see a federal data breach notification standard, one that would “trump” the current patchwork of state laws. With Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches, at least for the next two years, and considering the past legislative activity in this area, a federal law on data breach notification that supersedes state law does not seem likely.

Should we expect an expansion of privacy rights or other protections for electronic communication such as email or social media communication?

Again, much has been made of the disclosure of private email during the campaign, and President-elect Trump is famous (or infamous) for his use of social media, particularly his Twitter account. For some time, however, many have expressed concern that federal laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act are in need of significant updates to address new technologies and usage, while others continue to have questions about the application of the Communications Decency Act. We also have seen an increase in scrutiny over the content of electronic communications by the National Labor Relations Board, and more than twenty states have passed laws concerning the privacy of social media and online personal accounts. Meanwhile, the emergence of Big Data, artificial intelligence, IoT, cognitive computing and other technologies continue to spur significant privacy questions about the collection and use of data.

While there may be a tightening of the rules concerning how certain federal employees handle work emails, based on what we have seen, it does not appear at this point that a Trump Administration will make these issues a priority for the private sector.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

ARTICLE BY Joseph J. Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016