Category: Communication Media & Internet

Executive Order Provides Sanctions Aimed at Fighting Cyberattacks

On April 1, the president signed Executive Order 13694, which created a new sanctions regime for fighting cyberattacks. This creates opportunities for companies that are facing or may face cyberattacks. The Executive Order provides additional tools for victims of cyberattacks to punish the perpetrators by working with the government. The Executive Order creates framework to allow the government to take action in response to attacks on private companies and take all measures necessary to punish co-conspirators. The Executive Order also creates several issues that individuals and companies with international dealings should consider taking into consideration to avoid potential liability.

The Executive Order grants the Secretary of the Treasury authority to “block” the assets of anyone who conducts or aids “cyber-enabled activities . . . reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States . . . .” The Executive Order also grants the power to sanction any individual or entity that gives support to, assists in anyway, or sponsors such a cyber-attacker. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) will work in coordination with other U.S. government agencies to identify individuals and entities that engage in prohibited cyber activities and designate them for sanctions. Persons designated under this Executive Order will be added to OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List). U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in most all transactions with designated individuals and entities named on the SDN List or entities owned by such designated persons. Additionally, designated persons sanctioned under the Executive Order will be blocked from entering the United States.

Given the growing nature of cyberattacks and the Executive Order’s potentially broad reach, individuals and companies with international business should consider taking steps to ensure their business partners do not meet the criteria of cyberattackers. For example, payments from persons designated as cyberattackers will be blocked by U.S. financial institutions and U.S. persons that engage in transactions with such persons could be subject to substantial penalties. Accordingly, U.S. businesses engaged in international transactions should consider updating their compliance programs and screening procedures to ensure they are not dealing with any persons designated on the SDN List, or that are owned 50 percent or more by such designated persons.

The Executive Order represents a turning point for the administration. It signals that the administration will take a more active role in fighting attacks that are often diffuse and difficult to investigate. Barnes & Thornburg has worked with the government to track down hackers who have levied corporate cyberattacks. In light of the Executive Order, there can be little doubt that the government will redouble its efforts to help victim companies, presenting opportunities for companies to work with the government in its efforts to track down and stop the perpetrators. This is good news for fighting cyberattacks.

ARTICLE BY

Scott N. Godes & Karen A. McGee of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

 

Department of Justice Settles Virtual Currency Enforcement Action

The US Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California recently settled an enforcement action against Ripple Labs Inc., a Delaware corporation providing virtual currency exchange services. According to the settlement agreement, Ripple Labs was not registered with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as a money services business (MSB) pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 while engaged in currency trading, and lacked required anti-money laundering controls.

Ripple Labs is a virtual currency exchange service dealing in XRP, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization after Bitcoin. Between at least March and April 2013, Ripple Labs sold XRP in its exchange. During the time of the sales, Ripple Labs was not registered with FinCEN. In March 2013, FinCEN’s released guidance clarifying the applicability of registration requirements to certain participants in the virtual currency arena. Ripple Labs also lacked an adequate anti-money laundering program, and did not have a compliance officer to assure compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act.

The settlement agreement reached by Ripple Labs and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) called for a $450,000 forfeiture to the DOJ, as well as a civil money penalty of $700,000 to FinCEN. Ripple Labs agreed to cooperate with any DOJ or regulatory request for information. In addition, Ripple Labs agreed to operate its XRP exchange as an MSB registered with FinCEN and to maintain all necessary registrations. Ripple Labs also agreed to implement and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, complete with a compliance officer and training program. Finally, Ripple Labs agreed to conduct a review of prior transactions for evidence of illegal activity, as well as monitor transactions in the future to avoid potential money laundering or illegal transfer activity.

U.S. Department of Justice Settlement Agreement (May 5, 2015)

ARTICLE BY

Michael M. Rosensaft & Zachary D. Denver of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
©2015 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Supreme Court to Decide Who Can Sue Under Privacy Law

Does a consumer, as an individual, have standing to sue a consumer reporting agency for a “knowing violation” of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), even if the individual may not have suffered any “actual damages”?

The question will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2947 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015) (No. 13-1339). The Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for suits under the FCRA and other statutes that regulate privacy and consumer credit information.

FCRA

Enacted in 1970, the Fair Credit Reporting Act obligates consumer reporting agencies to maintain procedures to assure the “maximum possible accuracy” of any consumer report it creates. Under the statute, consumer reporting agencies are persons who regularly engage “in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.” Information about a consumer is considered to be a consumer report when a consumer reporting agency has communicated that information to another party and “is used or expected to be used or collected” for certain purposes, such as extending credit, underwriting insurance, or considering an applicant for employment. The information in a consumer report must relate to a “consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living.”

Under the FCRA, consumers may bring a private cause of action for alleged violations of their FCRA rights resulting from a consumer reporting agency’s negligent or willful actions. For a negligent violation, the consumer may recover the actual damages he or she may have sustained. For a “willful” or “knowing” violation, a consumer may recover either actual damages or statutory monetary damages of $100 to $1,000.

Background

Spokeo is a website that aggregates personal data from public records that it sells for many purposes, including employment screening. The information provided on the site may include an individual’s contact information, age, address, income, credit status, ethnicity, religion, photographs, and social media use.

Spokeo, Inc., has the dubious distinction of receiving the first fine ($800,000) from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for FCRA violations involving the sale of Internet and social media data in the employment screening context. The FTC alleged that the company was a consumer reporting agency and that it failed to comply with the FCRA’s requirements when it marketed consumer information to companies in the human resources, background screening, and recruiting industries.

Conflict in Circuit Courts

In Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., Thomas Robins had alleged several FCRA violations, including the reckless production of false information to potential employers. Robins did not allege he had suffered or was about to suffer any actual or imminent harm resulting from the information that was produced, raising only the possibility of a future injury.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, held that allegations of willful FCRA violations are sufficient to confer Article III standing to sue upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of the statute. In other words, the consumer need not allege any resulting damage caused by a violation; the “knowing violation” of a consumer’s FCRA rights alone, the Ninth Circuit held, injures the consumer. The Ninth Circuit’s holding is consistent with other circuits that have addressed the issue. See e.g., Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702, 705-07 (6th Cir. 2009). It refused to follow the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in finding that one “reasonable reading of the [FCRA] could still require proof of actual damages but simply substitute statutory rather than actual damages for the purpose of calculating the damage award.” Dowell v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 517 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2008).

The constitutional question before the U.S. Supreme Court is the scope of Congress’ authority to confer Article III standing, particularly, whether a violation of consumers’ statutory rights under the FCRA are the type of injury for which Congress may create a private cause of action to redress. In Beaudry, the Sixth Circuit identified two limitations on Congress’ ability to confer standing:

  1. the plaintiff must be “among the injured,” and

  2. the statutory right must protect against harm to an individual rather than a collective.

The defendant companies in Beaudry provided check-verification services. They had failed to account for a change in the numbering system for Tennessee driver’s licenses. This led to reports incorrectly identifying consumers as first-time check-writers.

The Sixth Circuit did not require the plaintiffs in Beaudry to allege the consequential damages resulting from the incorrect information. Instead, it held that the FCRA “does not require a consumer to wait for consequential harm” (such as the denial of credit) before bringing suit under FCRA for failure to implement reasonable procedures in the preparation of consumer reports. The Ninth Circuit endorsed this position, holding that the other standing requirements of causation and redressability are satisfied “[w]hen the injury in fact is the violation of a statutory right that [is] inferred from the existence of a private cause of action.”

Authored by: Jason C. Gavejian and Tyler Philippi of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Last Week Tonight’ Host John Oliver Ignores the Last Three Years of Patent Reform

Have you seen John Oliver’s piece about abuses in the patent system? The ‘Last Week Tonight’ host has quite a bit of fun at the expense of the patent system.  He tossed out three primary complaints:

(A) patent owners that don’t practice their patents shouldn’t be able to assert them;

(B) patent owners enforcing their patents are extorting parties, including small businesses and end users, that lack the funds or capability to litigate; and

(C) patents, especially software patents, are too vague, resulting in uncertainty as to what products or actions are encompassed.

John Oliver is witty, dry, and often downright silly – and it is for those reasons that millions of people are drawn to his humor and his show.  For those of us inclined to think that America’s tradition of strong patent protection has led us to be the most innovative country in the world, this particular story drew our attention for different reasons. His reporting posited the idea that the Innovation Act, H.R. 9, working its way through the House of Representatives, would solve most of the problems he identified in our patent system.  Far from providing the solutions its proponents claim, that legislation would do little or nothing to limit the sending of bogus demand letters to unsophisticated targets in hopes of extracting nuisance value settlements – a practice that many decry as the most egregious example of patent abuse.  Further, Mr. Oliver seems unaware that the last several years have seen judicial action and legislation that address the costs of patent litigation and the vagueness of software patents.  Whether these measures are sufficient without additional legislation is up for debate, but John Oliver’s hypothesis is weakened by his reliance on outdated and largely irrelevant facts and data.

In the interest of making sure truth isn’t sacrificed for the sake of a few good laughs, there are several points we would like to raise.

  • Not every patent owner that licenses its patents rather than practicing them is a “patent troll” deserving of punishment or deterrence.

  • Patent litigation is decreasing, and its costs are overstated.

  • With the America Invents Act of 2011, Congress has already taken steps to reduce the cost of patent litigation.

  • The Supreme Court has also recently addressed the costs of litigation.

  • The Supreme Court addressed vague software patents as well.

Authored by: Michael T. Renaud, Robert J. Moore and Jack C. Schecter of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

©1994-2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Reference Searches Through Social Media Do Not Create FCRA Claims

In their recruitment efforts, many employers will utilize social media to find suitable candidates for job openings. And, often employers will use the social media tools available to perform reference checks and/or verify a candidate’s employment history, experience and education history. Recently in California, a group of individuals challenged these social media background searches by suing the professional social media website, LinkedIn Corporation, because the information gleaned about these persons allegedly violated their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In Sweet v. LinkedIn Corp., Tracee Sweet, one of the named plaintiffs for the class, alleged she had applied for a position through LinkedIn. Sweet claimed the potential employer advised she had been hired following a telephone interview. A week after, the potential employer rescinded the offer and this decision was based on the employer’s review of Sweet’s references through LinkedIn.

The employer had used the Reference Searches function on LinkedIn, which allows employers to find people with whom an applicant may have worked previously. According to the class plaintiffs, this search engine allows employers to “[g]et the real story on any candidate” and to “[f]ind references who can give real, honest feedback” about job candidates. The Reference Searches function produces two types of information for paid subscribers: (1) the name and list of the search target’s current and former employers; and (2) a list of other LinkedIn members who are in the same professional network of the search initiator and “who may have worked at the same company during the same time period as the search target.” The Referencence Searches then produces results which include for each possible reference, “the name of the employer in common between the reference and the job applicant, and the reference’s position and years employed at that common employer.”

According to the complaint, each member of the class had a similar experience as Sweet. Each plaintiff believed that LinkedIn’s Reference Searches function caused them to lose employment opportunities in violation of the FCRA. The U.S. District Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims and dismissed the action. The court explained that FCRA did not apply to the social media site and, instead, only to “consumer reporting agencies” that provide “consumer reports.”

Under the FCRA, a “consumer report” is:

[A]ny written, oral or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part of the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for . . . . (B) employment purposes.

The district court stated that the publication of the plaintiffs’ employment histories were not consumer reports because that information came solely from LinkedIn’s transactions or experiences with the plaintiffs as members of the social media website. In other words, the information that was subsequently shared to a third-party occurred solely as a result of the plaintiffs’ voluntary provision of such information. As a result, that information is excluded from the protections of the FCRA. As the district court noted, the subsequent information sharing is precisely the reason why consumers such as the plaintiffs provide such information to LinkedIn.

Additionally, the district court found that LinkedIn was not a consumer reporting agency, as defined under the FCRA. The court explained that LinkedIn did not become a consumer reporting agency “solely because it conveys, with the consumer’s consent, information about the consumer to a third party to provide a specific product or service that the consumer has requested.”

Finally, the district court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the list of names and information about the references included in the Reference Searches bear on the “character, general reputation, mode of living” and other relevant characteristics of the consumers who are the subjects of these searches. Instead, the court found that the results from Reference Searches are those in the search initiator’s network and not in the target’s network. Therefore, the results only communicate whether the search initiator (not the target) have the characteristics protected under the FCRA (e.g., character, general reputation, mode of living).

Written by Tina A. Syring of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Junk Fax Act Compliance: One Week Left to Request a Waiver for Non-Compliance

McDermott Will & Emery

Thursday, April 30, 2015, marks the last day a business can request a retroactive waiver for failing to comply with certain fax advertising requirements promulgated by theFederal Communications Commission (FCC). The scope of these requirements was clarified on October 30, 2014, when the FCC issued an Order (2014 Order) under the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (Junk Fax Act). The 2014 Order confirms that senders of all advertising faxes must include information that allows recipients to opt out of receiving future faxes from that sender.

The 2014 Order clarifies certain aspects of the FCC’s 2006 Order under the Junk Fax Act (the Junk Fax Order). Among other requirements, the Junk Fax Order established the requirement that the sender of an advertising fax provide notice and contact information that allows a recipient to “opt out” of any future fax advertising transmissions.

Following the FCC’s publication of the Junk Fax Order, some businesses interpreted the opt-out requirements as not applying to advertising faxes sent with the recipient’s prior express permission (based on footnote 154 in the Junk Fax Order). The 2014 Order provided a six-month period for senders to comply with the opt-out requirements of the Junk Fax Order for faxes sent with the recipient’s prior express permission and to request retroactive relief for failing to comply. The six-month period ends on April 30, 2015. Without a waiver, the FCC noted that “any past or future failure to comply could subject entities to enforcement sanctions, including potential fines and forfeitures, and to private litigation.”

ARTICLE BY

Julia Jacobson
Matthew R. Turnell
McDermott Will & Emery

Telecoms File Lawsuit Challenging Net Neutrality Rules

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

The Federal Register officially published the FCC’s new rules governing net neutrality on Monday, April 13, 2015, and the new rules will take effect 60 days following the date of publication. As anticipated, AT&T and the wireless and cable industry groups immediately filed suit in the D.C. Circuit Court to challenge the new rules on Tuesday, April 14, 2015. The litigation is spearheaded by AT&T and its trade group CTIA – The Wireless Association which also represents Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile. The suit represents a new stage in the telecommunications industry’s efforts to challenge the recently enacted rules. Read additional coverage of the suit including potential arguments the telecommunications groups will raise, and stay tuned for our take on the developing litigation.

ARTICLE BY

Scott J. Leipzig
Alan Hearty
Brian R. Bauer
Ariel Shaeps
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
California Wireless Law Blog

IoT – It’s All About the Data, Right?

Foley and Lardner LLP

A few weeks ago, the FTC released a report on the Internet of Things (IoT). IoT refers to “things” such as devices or sensors – other than computers, smartphones, or tablets – that connect, communicate or transmit information with or between each other through the Internet. This year, there are estimated to be over 25 billion connected devices, and by 2020, 50 billion. With the ubiquity of IoT devices raising various concerns, the FTC has provided several recommendations.

Security

The report includes the following security recommendations for companies developing Internet of Things devices:

  • Build security into devices at the outset, rather than as an afterthought in the design process

  • Train employees about the importance of security, and ensure that security is managed at an appropriate level in the organization

  • Ensure that when outside service providers are hired, that those providers are capable of maintaining reasonable security, and provide reasonable oversight of the providers

  • When a security risk is identified, consider a “defense-in-depth” strategy whereby multiple layers of security may be used to defend against a particular risk

  • Consider measures to keep unauthorized users from accessing a consumer’s device, data, or personal information stored on the network

  • Monitor connected devices throughout their expected life cycle, and where feasible, provide security patches to cover known risks

Data Minimization

The report suggested companies consider data minimization – that is, limiting the collection of consumer data, and retaining that information only for a set period of time, and not indefinitely. Data minimization addresses two key privacy risks: first, the risk that a company with a large store of consumer data will become a more enticing target for data thieves or hackers, and second, that consumer data will be used in ways contrary to consumers’ expectations.

Notice and Choice

The FTC provided further recommendations relating to notice and choice. It is recommended that companies notify consumers and give them choices about how their information will be used, particularly when the data collection is beyond consumers’ reasonable expectations.

What Does This Mean for Device Manufacturers?

It is evident from the FTC’s report that security and data governance are important features for IoT device manufacturers to consider. Although the report suggests implementing data minimization protocols to limit the type and amount of data collected and stored, IoT device manufacturers should not be short-sighted when deciding what data to collect and store through their IoT devices. For many IoT device manufacturers, the data collected may be immensely valuable to them and other stakeholders. It would be naïve to decide not to collect certain types of data simply because there is no clear use or application of the data, the costs and risks of storing such data are cost prohibitive or because they want to reduce their exposure due to a security breach. In fact, quite often IoT device manufacturers do not realize what types of data may be useful. IoT device manufacturers would be best served by analyzing who the stakeholders of their data may be.

For instance, an IoT device manufacturer that monitors soil conditions of farms may realize that the data they collect can be useful, not only to farmers, but also to insurance companies to better understand water table levels, produce suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers to predict produce inventory, farm equipment suppliers, among others. Because of this, IoT device manufacturers should identify the stakeholders of the data they collect early and revisit the data they collect to identify new stakeholders not previously identified based on trends that can be determined from the data.

Moreover, IoT device manufacturers should constantly consider ways to monetize or otherwise leverage the data they gather and collect. IoT device manufacturers tend to shy away from owning the data they collect in an effort to respect their customers’ privacy. Instead of not collecting sensitive data at all, IoT device manufacturers would be best served by exploring and implementing data collection and storage techniques that reduce their exposure to security breaches while at the same time allay the fears of customers.

ARTICLE BY

Shabbi S. Kahn
OF
Foley & Lardner LLP

The New Competition – Emerging Legal Technologies Out of Silicon Valley

The National Law Review - Legal Analysis Expertly Written Quickly Found

In January, the National Law Review had pleasure of attending theAnnual Marketing Partner Forum in beautiful Rancho Palos Altos, California. Programing was provided by the Legal Executives Institute at Thomson Reuters and featured over 15 hours of dynamic workshops. Hundreds of  marketing partners, managing partners, in-house counsel and senior-level marketing and business development professionals were in attendance.

The “New Competition” program featured emerging legal technologies within Silicon Valley. Catherine Hammack of Jurispect, Monica Zent of Foxwordy, and Daniel Lewis of Ravel Law each showcased their innovative technologies and shared their thoughts as to where innovation is taking the legal industry in 2015.

“Jurispect will help fundamentally transform how companies operate by providing organizations with a real-time analytical view of both exposure and opportunities to take proactive steps to manage legal and regulatory risk.” – Catherine Hammack

Catherine was present on two momentous occasions in U.S. financial history: as an intern at Arthur Anderson when Enron was indicted, and as a first-day associate at Bingham McCutchen the day Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, and the start of the financial crisis in 2008.  Following her time at Bingham as a financial litigator, she transitioned to join Google’s Policy team, where her perspective on legal services dramatically changed.

Catherine Hammack of Jurispect - Real-time regulatory analytics for better business decisions

As Catherine elaborated in a post-conference interview: “There was a huge gap between the way law firms traditionally provide counsel and the way companies need information to make business decisions.” She was surrounded by engineers and data scientists who were analyzing vasts amounts of data with cutting edge technology.  Catherine became interested in adapting these technologies for managing risk in the legal and regulatory industries.  Inspired by Google’s data-driven decision making policies, she founded Jurispect.

Jurispect is a tool that companies can use to track legal and regulatory changes relevant to their industry, and possibly to identify risks earlier on to help avoid future Enrons and Lehman Brothers. Currently, Jurispect is geared toward companies in the financial services and technology space, and will be expanding into other regulated industries in the very near future.  Key decision makers in the corporate legal, compliance and risk departments of companies are benefitting from Jurispect’s actionable intelligence. The user’s experience is customized: Jurispect’s technology adjusts based on user profile settings and company attributes. As the user continues to utilize Jurispect, its algorithms continuously calibrate to improve the relevancy of information presented to each user.

Jurispect - New Legal technology emerging out of silicon valley

Jurispect’s team of seasoned experts in engineering, data science, product management, marketing, legal and compliance collaborated to develop the latest machine learning and semantic analysis technologies. These technologies are used to aggregate information across regulatory agencies, including sources such as policy statements and enforcement actions.  Jurispect also analyzes information in relevant press releases, and coverage by both industry bodies and mainstream news.  The most time-saving aspect of Jurispect are the results that coalesce into user-friendly reports to highlight the importance and relevance of the regulatory information to their company.  Users can view this intelligence in the form of notifications, trends, and predictive analytics reports.  Jurispect makes data analytics work for legal professionals so they spend less time searching, and more time on higher level competencies.  As Catherine elaborated, “We believe that analytics are quickly becoming central to any technology solution, and the regulatory space is no exception.”

“Foxwordy is ushering in the era of the social age for lawyers and for the legal industry.” – Monica Zent

Monica is an experienced entrepreneur and had already been running a successful alternative law firm practice when she founded Foxwordy. Foxwordy is a private social network that is exclusively for lawyers.  Monica reminded the audience that we are, remarkably, ten years into the social media experience and all attorneys should consider a well rounded social media toolkit that includes Foxwordy, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

Monica Zent of Foxwordy - the first private social network for lawyers

However, as Monica elaborated in a post-conference interview, LinkedIn, for example, “falls short of the needs of professionals like lawyers who are in a space that is regulated; where there’s privacy, [and] professional ethics standards.” As an experienced attorney and social seller, Monica understands that lawyers’ needs are different from other professionals that use the more mainstream and very public social networks, which is why she set out to create Foxwordy.

Foxwordy is currently available to licensed attorneys, those who are licensed but not currently practicing but regularly involved in the business of law, certified paralegals, and will eventually open up to law students. Anyone who fits the above criteria can request membership by going to the homepage, and all potential members go through a vetting process to ensure that they are a member of the legal community.  At its inception, the Foxwordy team expected to see more millennials and solo practitioners taking advantage of the opportunity to network on Foxwordy. Those populations have joined as expected, but what was surprising is how the product resonated across all demographics, positions and segments of the legal industry. Foxwordy has seen general counsels, in-house counsels, solo practitioners, major law firm partners, law school deans, judges, politicians and more become members.

Foxwordy logo -socal media network for lawyers

Foxwordy is currently available to join and will be emerging out of public beta around summertime this year.  As Monica said during her presentation “Time is the new currency”, and what the Foxwordy team has found via two clinical trials is that engaging Foxwordy saves lawyers an average of two hours per day. Membership includes all the core social features such as a profile page, connecting with others, the ability to ask questions and engage anonymously, exchange referrals, and exchange other information and resources. Free members experience all the core functions fully and there is a premium membership that is available with enhanced features and unlimited use of Foxwordy. In the closing thoughts of her post-conference interview, Monica shared that “the ability to engage anonymously and discreetly, yet at the same time collaborate with our legal colleagues and engage with them on a social level has been very powerful.”

“There is an amazing opportunity to use data analytics and technology to create a competitive edge for lawyers amidst all of this information…” – Daniel Lewis

Data analytics and technology has been used in many different fields to predict successful results. In his presentation, Daniel pointed out that fields traditionally considered more art than science have benefitted from the use of data analytics to predict accurate results.

Daniel Lewis of Ravel Law - use data analytics and technology to create a competitive edge for lawyers

Having conducted metrics-based research and advocacy while at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and observing how data-driven decision making was being used in areas like baseball and politics, Daniel was curious why the legal industry had fallen so far behind. Even though the legal field is often considered to be slow moving, there are currently over 11 million opinions in the U.S. judicial system with more than 350,000 new opinions issued per year. There is also a glut of secondary material that has appeared on the scene in the form of legal news sources, white papers, law blogs and more. Inspired by technology’s ability to harness and utilize vast amounts of information, Daniel founded Ravel Law to accommodate the dramatically growing world of legal information.

Ravel Law is optimized for all lawyers across the country. Currently, thousands of associates, partners, and in-house counsel are using Ravel.  Ravel has as also begun working with 30 of the top law schools around the country, with thousands of law students learning how to use it right alongside legal research staples such as Westlaw and LexisNexis.  Professors and students around the country have also independently discovered Ravel and are using and teaching it.  When asked why he works with law schools, Daniel said “We work with schools because students are always the latest generation and have the highest expectations about how technology should work for them.”  Students have given the Ravel team excellent feedback and have grown into a loyal user base over the past few years. Once these students graduate, they introduce Ravel to their firms. Ravel’s user base has been growing very quickly and they have only released a small portion of what their technology is ultimately capable of.

Ravel Law Logo - A New View on Legal Research

Ravel’s team of PhDs and technical advisors from Google, LinkedIn, and Facebook, has coded advanced search algorithms to determine what is relevant, thereby enhancing legal research’s effectiveness and efficiency. Ravel provides insights, rather than simply lists of related materials, by using big data technologies such as machine learning, data visualization, advanced statistics and natural language processing.  In a post-conference follow up Daniel elaborates: “Our visualizations then show how the results connect in context, helping people understand the legal landscape very rapidly as well as find needles in the haystack.” Ravel guides users toward analysis of relevant passages in a particular case, without navigating away from the original case or conducting a new search. Daniel and his colleagues will be launching more new features this year and are looking forward to continuing to “transform how attorneys search and understand all legal information.”

Sponsors of Net Neutrality Bill Receive Thousands from Internet Service Providers

MapLight, a nonprofit and political research organization

Late last month, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) held a hearing to discuss congressional action on net neutrality.  The representatives, who chair House committees that oversee the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), also released an early draft of a bill to regulate the open flow of information on the Internet.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) pictured in foreground
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) pictured in foreground. Image source: House GOP Leader/Flickr

Consumer advocates have argued the draft proposal fails to adequately regulate net neutrality, and instead voiced support FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler’s efforts to regulate the internet like a utility.  The FCC isscheduled to vote on Commissioner Wheeler’s proposal on Feb. 26.

Campaign Contributions: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from employees and political action committees (PACs) of the four largest internet service providers in the United States, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications, to the campaign committees of Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Greg Walden (R-OR) during the 2014 election cycle.

Member Amount Received
AT&T Comcast Time Warner Cable Verizon Communications Total
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) $10,000 $37,600 $21,500 $30,400 $99,500
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) $5,000 $32,050 $14,500 $5,250 $56,800
Total $15,000 $69,650 $36,000 $35,650 $156,300

  • The top four internet service providers, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications, contributed $156,300 to Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) during the 2014 election cycle.

  • The four companies contributed $99,500 to Rep. Upton.

  • The four companies contributed $56,800 to Rep. Walden.

  • The top contributor, Comcast, contributed $69,650 to the two chairmen during the 2014 election cycle.

To view lobbying data for AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communication please click here.

Campaign Contributions Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) from PACs and employees of the AT&T, Comcast, Cox Communications, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications, the four largest internet service providers in the United States, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014. Contributions data source: Federal Election Commission