Category: Communication Media & Internet

Supreme Court Inks Uniform Standing Test for Lanham Act False Advertising Claims

Katten Muchin

Key Takeaways

  1. The US Supreme Court created a uniform test for standing for false advertising claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, resolving a three-way circuit split.
  2. The new standing test requires the plaintiff to allege and prove that it suffered an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation, and that such injury was proximately caused by the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.
  3. The Court closed the courthouse doors to consumer class action suits under Section 43(a), pointing to the commercial interest requirement.
  4. The decision may prompt speculation regarding uncertainty as to standing for other claims under Section 43(a), including claims for infringement of unregistered trademarks.

Discussion of the Case

In a decision issued March 25, 2014, Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., the US Supreme Court rejected three conflicting tests for standing for false advertising claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, creating a new test in the process. Specifically, plaintiffs must now “plead (and ultimately prove) an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentations.”

Plaintiff Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexmark) sells laser printers and corresponding ink cartridges. The ink cartridges contain a microchip that deactivates them after they run out of ink, which is intended to stop “remanufacturers” from refurbishing and selling the ink cartridges in competition with Lexmark. Defendant Static Control Components, Inc. (Static Control), while not a direct competitor of Lexmark, sells component parts to remanufacturers, including a replacement microchip that allows the remanufacturers to once again refurbish and sell ink cartridges in competition with Lexmark. In response, Lexmark sent letters to the remanufacturers, advising that it was illegal to sell the refurbished ink cartridges and, in particular, that it was illegal to use Static Control’s products to refurbish the ink cartridges.

Lexmark sued Static Control for copyright infringement based on its creation and sale of the microchips. Static Control counterclaimed for false advertising based on, among other things, the letters to the remanufacturers. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed Static Control’s counterclaim for lack of “prudential standing,” and the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and ultimately held that Static Control satisfied the Court’s new test for standing under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. In so holding, the Court swept aside what it called the “misleading” concept of “prudential standing,” which has been applied by courts as an additional hurdle to alleging standing beyond the broad “case or controversy” requirement (i.e., an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct complained of) of Article III of the US Constitution. The Court held that standing simply flows from traditional statutory interpretation principles. In particular, courts need only look to the at-issue statute to determine (1) whether the plaintiff’s alleged injury falls within the “zone of interest” protected by the statute, and if so, (2) whether such injury was proximately caused by the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.

The Court’s new standing analysis falls somewhere in the middle of the three rejected tests: one, which conferred standing only on direct competitors of the defendant; the second, which used a multifactor analysis borrowed from antitrust law; and the third, which conferred standing on any plaintiff that demonstrated a “reasonable interest to be protected against” and a “reasonable basis for believing” that such interest was likely to be harmed.

Turning to the interpretation of the “zone of interest” protected by the Lanham Act, the Court looked to the statute’s clear statement of intent in Section 45 regarding protection against “unfair competition.” Citing to a law review article from 1929, the Court found that unfair competition “was generally understood to be concerned with injuries to business reputation and present and future sales.” Thus, the Court concluded that the “zone of interest” of Section 43(a) was limited to injuries to a commercial interest in reputation or sales. The Court then slammed the courthouse doors on consumer class actions under Section 43(a), pointing out that this “zone of interest” excluded a suit based on a “consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product.”

On the facts at hand, the Court held that Static Control had sufficiently alleged lost sales and damage to its business reputation, easily satisfying the “zone of interest” requirement. Further, the Court found that Static Control’s allegations sufficiently pled that those injuries were proximately caused by Lexmark’s representations that Static Control’s business was illegal. Accordingly, the Court held that Static Control had standing and was thus “entitled to a chance to prove its case.”

While this decision provides some welcome certainty for false advertising litigants, ending the three-way circuit split regarding Section 43(a) false advertising standing, it also opens the door to speculation regarding standing for other “unfair competition” claims under Section 43(a) (e.g., infringement of unregistered trademarks). Specifically, the Court’s holding and analysis were not expressly limited to Section 43(a)(1)(b), which relates to false advertising, but instead apply to all of Section 43(a). It is thus unclear whether, for example, some increased level of “proximate harm” will be required for trademark claims under Section 43(a). Then again, the Court’s formulation of what constitutes proximate harm under Section 43(a)—when “deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff”—seems to fit nicely with the “likelihood of consumer confusion” standard applied in trademark cases.

Article By:

Roger P. Furey
Doron S. Goldstein
Michael R. Justus
Of:
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Gaga for Gigabit: The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Liberates 100 MHz of Spectrum for Unlicensed Wi-Fi

Sheppard Mullin 2012

On April 1, the FCC took steps to remedy a small but growing annoyance of modern life:  poor Wi-Fi connectivity.  Removing restrictions that had been in place to protect the mobile satellite service uplinks of Globalstar, and by unanimous vote, the FCC’s First Report and Order on U-NII will free devices for both (i) outdoor operations; and (ii) operation at higher power levels in the 5.15 – 5.25 GHz band (also called the U-NII-1 band).1 The Report and Order also requires manufacturers to take steps to prevent unauthorized software changes to equipment in the U-NII bands, as well as to impose measures protecting weather and other radar systems in the band.

The practical impact of these rule changes is difficult to overstate.  By removing the operating restrictions in the U-NII-1 band, the FCC essentially doubled the amount of unlicensed spectrum in the 5 GHz band available to consumers.  In the near future, use of this spectrum will help to alleviate congestion on existing Wi-Fi networks, especially outdoor “hotspots” typically used at large public places like airports, stadiums, hotels and convention centers.  Two less-obvious, longer-term benefits also are worth watching.

First, the new IEEE 802.11ac standard for Wi-Fi was finalized in January 2014.  This next generation Wi-Fi standard is capable of delivering vast increases in raw throughput capacity to end-users, often approaching the holy grail of transfer speeds: 1 gigabit.  To achieve those speeds, wide channels of operation are required – channels that simply were not available to Wi-Fi devices.  Now that the U-NII-1 band has been unleashed for Wi-Fi usage, there should be little impediment to the near-term rollout of 802.11ac compatible devices.

This new standard will offer marked improvements in download speeds and streaming quality, and be a boon to consumers who increasingly rely on mobile devices for bandwidth intensive applications such as HD video.  Unsurprisingly, cable operators in particular are excited by the possibilities of this technology; on the day the Report and Order was released, Comcast Chief Technology Officer Tony Werner authored a lengthy blog post touting the possibilities of Comcast offering Gigabit Wi-Fi to its customers utilizing the U-NII-1 band.[2]

Second, in addition to the untempered enthusiasm of the MSOs, wireless carriers also have a stake in this unlicensed spectrum.  Specifically, as use of licensed mobile spectrum continues to expand exponentially, the wireless carriers will increasingly encourage wireless offloading as a means of addressing congestion and capacity issues on macro cellular networks.  For example, Cisco Systems estimates that 45% of global mobile data traffic was offloaded onto the fixed network through Wi-Fi or small cells in 2013.[3]

This transformation of 100 MHz of spectrum in the U-NII-1 band marks one part of a renewed focus on consumer broadband at the FCC.  In addition to unlicensed Wi-Fi, the FCC is also in the middle of a proceeding – covered in an earlier FCC Law Blog post[4] – to streamline rules for wireless infrastructure.  Taken together with the FCC’s release earlier this week of auction rules for 65 MHz of AWS-3 spectrum later this year, it becomes clear that although it is early yet, the Wheeler Commission is gaga for broadband.

[1] U-NII is the acronym for “Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure devices”, unintentional radiators which facilitate broadband access and wireless local area networking, including Wi-Fi.  A copy of the First Report and Order is available here.

[2] See Tony Werner’s blog post here.

[3] See Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2013-2018.

[4] See Sleeper “Small” Cells: The Battle Over The FCC’s Wireless Infrastructure Proceeding.

Article By:

Douglas A. Svor
Dave Thomas
Of:
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

 

 

The 7 Blocks to a Firm Marketing Foundation: Block One

logo

Being a successful attorney is something that takes more than just knowledge of the law. It’s an unfortunate fact that many attorneys will find themselves faced with. You may be the best lawyer in your city or even state, but no one will ever know that if you don’t make a point to make yourself known.

Now, people have heard me say these tips at events, but I’m going to give you the information because I’m committed to making the attorney dream come true. The dream we all had when we entered into law school of the firm with our names on the sign, with the staff that handles things well and the cases that we enjoy doing. I know that dream because I’ve managed to achieve that dream.

The foundation of achieving this dream is much easier than you would expect. It’s built on 7 solid blocks.

Block number one: Videos

When someone visits your website, they’re subconsciously looking for something that is different; something that they don’t see on other lawyer websites.

If you have a set of videos available to them, they’ve found that one thing.

Videos are some of the most important parts of my firm marketing foundation; they are one of the things that I will probably never give up.

When a potential client goes to your website and watches a few videos, the information that you relay causes a psychological trigger that makes them trust you more. The more videos you have on your website (and even YouTube) can (and probably will) start the ball rolling for a good attorney-client relationship.

You may be wondering what exactly you should even make videos on, especially since some states have strict restrictions on things that could be construed as legal advice.

One of the things that I’ve found to be most popular with consumers is a Frequently Asked Questions series. Think of the 5 (or more) questions that you hear from almost each person you meet with.

These are questions that you could probably answer in your sleep and find yourself repeating the same information up to 10 times a day. You already know how to answer these particular questions in a short way that gives the most information because of the frequency of which you actually hear them.

Those questions are not going to go away, you hear them every day because people want to know those answers. If you take some time to film the answer to each of those videos and produce a series of one a week for however many weeks, you’re going to see some changes. Instead of having to answer the questions day after day, the people you meet with will have the answers or, if they haven’t had a chance to see the video yet, you can just send them the link and they’ll be even more impressed.

Videos are marketing tools that never stop working. A video can answer questions for you, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

Article By:

Ben Glass
Of:
Great Legal Marketing, Inc.

How to Write Blog Posts People Actually Want to Read [INFOGRAPHIC]

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

 

The purpose of having a blog is to foster an online dialogue with prospects, clients and referral sources so that when they need someone who does what you do, they will think of your first. Drawing people into your conversation requires you to often step outside your comfort zone, since most attorneys write the way they were trained to do in law school.

But when it comes to writing blog posts that people actually want to read, that just doesn’t cut it.

The most important thing to remember when writing for those who don’t practice law for a living is to be authentic. And the best way to do this is to write the way you talk. As you sit down to craft a new post, imagine you are talking to a friend who needs your guidance on a legal issue. Use the same words you use in your everyday life. Forget the grammar rules and write your draft, then go back over it to correct any glaring grammatical errors.

The infographic below, courtesy of Copyblogger.com, outlines the other essentials for writing blog posts. Print it off and keep a copy by your computer to refer to as you write. Following these simple guidelines will have you authoring a compelling, lead-generating blog in no time.

Blogs Social Media

Article by: 

Stephen Fairley

Of:

The Rainmaker Institute

California District Court Holds that Providing Cellphone Number for an Online Purchase Constitutes “Prior Express Consent” Under TCPA – Telephone Consumer Protection Act

DrinkerBiddle

 

A federal district court in California recently ruled that a consumer who voluntarily provided a cellphone number in order to complete an online purchase gave “prior express consent” to receive a text message from the business’s vendors under the TCPA. See Baird v. Sabre, Inc., No. CV 13-999 SVW, 2014 WL 320205 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014).

In Baird, the plaintiff booked flights through the Hawaiian Airlines website. In order to complete her purchase, the plaintiff provided her cellphone number. Several weeks later she received a text message from the airline’s vendor, Sabre, Inc., inviting the plaintiff to receive flight notification services by replying “yes.” The plaintiff did not respond and no further messages were sent. The plaintiff sued the vendor claiming that it violated the TCPA by sending the single text message.

The central issue in Baird was whether, by providing her cellphone number to the airline, the plaintiff gave “prior express consent” to receive autodialed calls from the vendor under the TCPA. In 1992, the FCC promulgated TCPA implementing rules, including a ruling that “persons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the contrary.” In re Rules & Reg’s Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 7 F.C.C.R. 8752, 8769 ¶ 31 (1992) (“1992 FCC Order”). In support of this ruling, the FCC cited to a House Report stating that when a person provides their phone number to a business, “the called party has in essence requested the contact by providing the caller with their telephone number for use in normal business communications.” Id. (citing H.R.Rep. No. 102–317, at 13 (1991)).

The court found that, while the 1992 FCC Order “is not a model of clarity,” it shows that the “FCC intended to provide a definition of the term ‘prior express consent.’” Id. at *5. Under that definition, the court held that the plaintiff consented to being contacted on her cellphone by an automated dialing machine when she provided the number to Hawaiian Airlines during the online reservation process. Id. at *6. Under the existing TCPA jurisprudence, a text message is a “call.” Id. at *1. Furthermore, although the plaintiff only provided her cellphone number to the airline (and not to Sabre, Inc., the vendor), the court concluded that “[n]o reasonable consumer could believe that consenting to be contacted by an airline company about a scheduled flight requires that all communications be made by direct employees of the airline, but never by any contractors performing services for the airline.” Id. at *6. The Judge was likewise unmoved by the fact that the plaintiff was required to provide a phone number (though not necessarily a cellphone number) to complete the online ticket purchase. Indeed, the court observed that the affirmative act of providing her cellphone number was an inherently “voluntary” act and that, had the plaintiff objected, she could simply have chosen not to fly Hawaiian Airlines. Id.

Baird does not address the October 2013 TCPA regulatory amendments that require “prior express written consent” for certain types of calls made to cellular phones and residential lines (a topic that previously has been covered on this blog). See 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(2), (3) (emphasis added). “Prior express written consent” is defined as “an agreement, in writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial prerecorded voice, and the telephone number to which the signatory authorized such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.” 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(8). Whether the Baird rationale would help in a “prior express written consent” case likely would depend on the underlying facts such as whether the consumer/plaintiff agreed when making a purchase to be contacted by the merchant at the phone number provided, and whether the consumer/plaintiff provided an electronic signature. See 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(8)(ii).

Nonetheless, Baird is a significant win for the TCPA defense bar and significantly reduces TCPA risk for the defendants making non-telemarketing calls (or texts) to cellphones using an automated dialer (for which “prior express consent” is the principal affirmative defense). If that cellphone number is given by the consumer voluntarily (and, given the expansive logic of Baird, we wonder when it could be considered “coerced”), the defendant has obtained express consent. Baird leaves open a number of questions worth watching, including how far removed the third-party contractor can be from the company to whom a cellphone number was voluntarily provided. Judge Wilson seemed to think it was obvious to the consumer that a third-party might be utilized by an airline to provide flight status information, but how far does that go? We’ll be watching.

Article By:

Of:

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Digital Currency Identified as an “Emerging Risk” in the Canadian Federal Government’s 2014 Budget

Dickinson Wright Logo

 

On February 11, 2014, the Canadian Federal Government released its 2014 Budget. In the 2014 Budget, the Federal Government pledged to introduce legislative amendments to strengthen Canada’s anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regime in the area of virtual (digital) currency.

2013: Year of Bitcoin?

At the beginning of 2013, one bitcoin could be purchased for $12. For a brief period in November 2013, one bitcoin was worth more than one ounce of gold ($1242 to $1240, respectively). Forbes and MarketWatch wrote articles proclaiming 2013 as the year of bitcoin, and “bitcoin” was chosen as the word of the year by the Australian National Dictionary Centre (beating out worthy candidates, including “selfie” and “twerk”).

This increased popularity of digital currency has brought increased scrutiny from regulators and law enforcement. Last year in the United States, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidance with respect to whether activities by individuals and companies related to virtual currencies are subject to registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, and the FBI arrested the “mastermind” of Silk Road (a marketplace selling illegal items and accepting payment in virtual currency). In early 2014, a prominent member of the bitcoin community was indicted on money laundering charges.

Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) Release Its Position on Bitcoin

Prior to the release of the 2014 Budget, the main Canadian government references to digital currency were from the CRA. The first notable CRA acknowledgment of bitcoin was in April 2013 in the form of a CRA communication to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC”). The communication stated that transactions involving bitcoin are barter transactions and that gains resulting from bitcoin transactions could be income or capital depending on the specific facts.

On November 5, 2013, the CRA issued its first release on the taxation of digital currency. This release reinforced the CRA’s earlier position on bitcoin that was set out in its April 2013 e-mail to the CBC. On December 23, 2013, in CRA Document No. 2013-0514701|7, subject “Bitcoins,” the CRA further clarified its position with respect to bitcoin “in response to a summary of comments that were provided in response to a recent media enquiry describing the income tax consequences of various transactions involving digital currency.”

Accordingly, the CRA considers bitcoin to be a commodity, not a currency. Therefore, using bitcoins to purchase goods or services is considered a barter transaction. The sale of bitcoins at a profit is treated as either income or capital depending on a particular taxpayer’s circumstances.

Virtual Currency in the 2014 Budget

Virtual currency is identified in the 2014 Budget as an “emerging risk” that threatens Canada’s international leadership in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Bitcoin is cited in the 2014 Budget as an example of such virtual currency.

In the 2014 Budget, the Federal Government proposed to introduce anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulations for virtual currencies, such as bitcoin.

The Federal Government noted in the 2014 Budget that this proposal was based on a report by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled Follow the Money: Is Canada Making Progress in Combatting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing? Not Really (the “Report”). The Report is a five-year review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (the “Act”) and was issued in March 2013. However, the only reference in the Report to digital currency is a brief note that the development of electronic methods to launder money must be addressed through timely amendments to the Act and its regulations.

2014: Year of Bitcoin Regulation

The Federal Government has identified digital currency as an “emerging risk” in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Accordingly, the regulation of digital currency in Canada is imminent, and individuals and businesses dealing in bitcoin will soon be subject to certain registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

Article by:

Dickinson Wright PLLC

 

How a Smartphone App Aims to Replace Attorneys

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

 

A smartphone app that allows users to create, sign and send legally binding documents is the latest tech tool developed to shake up the delivery of legal services.  And its name, aptly enough, is Shake.

Shake is the brainchild of Abe Geiger, an entrepreneur who found that standard contracts were too cumbersome and complicated to meet the needs of today’s business world, even though he has access to all the free legal advice he needs (his wife is an attorney).

As with so many other inventions, Shake started with the thought that, “There has to be a better way.”

Smartphone App Legal Services

With some Silicon Valley VC funding, Geiger and his team set out on their mission, which is posted on their website:

Our mission is to make the law accessible, understandable and affordable for consumers and small businesses. We want to empower our users to share ideas, goods, and services without the fear of being stiffed for a freelance gig or putting their business at risk.

Geiger said he believes that change in the legal industry will be driven by small businesses and consumers, not by lawyers and law firms.  He says that the legal market is huge, inefficient, underserved by technology and begging for change.

Sounds like he has more than one reason to shake things up.

Carolyn Elefant, who blogs about solos and small firms at MyShingle.com, wrote recently in an Above the Law post that the app won’t displace real lawyers because the people who want to use an app or a website for their legal documents are not likely to hire an attorney anyway.  I tend to agree.

I also agree with Geiger’s assertion that people are looking for more technology-based solutions for their legal problems, even if that “problem” is only a freelance contract or a NDA.

What attorneys should take away from this is that the market is moving toward technology much faster than most lawyers are, and making technology solutions available to clients – something as simple as downloadable documents off a secure website – is the new way your clients are defining good customer service.

Article by:

Stephen Fairley

Of:

The Rainmaker Institute

How a Lawyer can Start a Successful LinkedIn Group for Business Development (Part 2 of 3)

Print

In my previous post, we looked at some preliminary steps attorneys can take to plan a LinkedIn Group. Once you’ve laid this foundation, it’s time ask yourself three questions:

LinkedIn

  • Has the niche you seek to fill with your group been addressed by existing, active groups?
  • Is the focus of your group going to be broad enough to attract a reasonable amount of participants, while being narrow enough to attract your target audience?
  • Are you able to commit to starting meaningful discussions on a daily or weekly basis, encouraging group members to participate in the conversation and removing posts that are spammy or overtly sales-oriented? (This is your last chance to back out!)

Now that you are ready to take the plunge, you’ve got some housekeeping items to attend to:

1. Develop a Strategy

Draft a brief outline of your group’s focus, target audience and goals (both for the group and for yourself). State some objectives for the group, such as, “Inform members of timely news and events” or “Enhance the interaction among professionals in this industry.” Your outline should include a content plan that identifies, for example, the types of timely issues and events your group will track. Identify how you will track this information. Put as much detail into your group plan as you can prior to launching it, to ensure that you have a clear roadmap to guide your efforts.

2. Name Your Group

LinkedIn Groups are used to attract and coalesce like-minded people, so the group name should reflect the interest area. The name is also important as a search term – what words will your target audience type to find your group? Spend some time searching LinkedIn Groups to see what is already being used and what would work best for your group. Also, keep it under 54 characters – if it’s any longer, the title will get cut-off in a search.

3. Get a Logo

A logo is a key element in presenting your group as a professional entity. If you have an in-house designer, talk with him about your group and share your strategy so he can design something appropriate. If you don’t have an in-house designer, ask around for a freelancer. This process shouldn’t take long, but it will go a long way toward giving your group an identity.

4. Create Your Group

When you create your group on LinkedIn, you’ll not only want to have your logo ready to upload, but you’ll also want to post a group summary and a list of group rules for members to refer to.

5. Finally – Invite Contacts to Join!

  • Use your existing network to build an initial membership base. Invite coworkers, past colleagues, and clients (who fit the group’s profile) to join the group. LinkedIn will allow you to send out up to 50 announcements per day to your connections.
  • As manager of the group, regularly support group members who start, and contribute to, discussions. Do this by commenting, liking and sharing their posts.
  • It is permissible to visit similar groups of which you’re a member and mention your group. Politely compliment the group and then mention that you’ve got another group that members in your group’s niche may want to consider joining.

This is the second post in a three-part series detailing how lawyers can start successful LinkedIn Groups to foster their business development efforts. For Part one, click here.

Article by:

Aileen M. Hinsch

Of:

Knapp Marketing

Google Sticks a Fork in Guest Blogging for SEO (Search Engine Optimization)

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

Last month, Google’s Matt Cutts, who heads up the search engine giant’s webspam team, wrote this on the Google Webmaster blog:

So stick a fork in it: guest blogging is done; it’s just gotten too spammy. In general I wouldn’t recommend accepting a guest blog post unless you are willing to vouch for someone personally or know them well. Likewise, I wouldn’t recommend relying on guest posting, guest blogging sites, or guest blogging SEO as a link building strategy.

So should you halt your guest blogging efforts?  Well, in a word, no.  Because SEO is not the only reason you guest blog – either on other blogs, or hosting guests on your own blog.  Which is why Cutts later updated his original post to say this:

Google SEO Search Engine Optimization

It seems like most people are getting the spirit of what I was trying to say, but I’ll add a bit more context. I’m not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are still many good reasons to do some guest blogging (exposure, branding, increased reach, community, etc.). Those reasons existed way before Google and they’ll continue into the future.

Guest blogging used to be ONE way to develop quality links back to your own website or blog. Unfortunately, those trying to game the system with low quality content have made it – as Cutts says – a spammy practice.  Those that use guest blogging as their sole source of link building will now be out of luck and may even be penalized.

But I would still recommend guest blogging as a way for attorneys to spread their authority to other audiences that may not have otherwise been engaged by your own blog or website.  It can also still be a great way for you to improve the visibility of your firm and, when shared on social media, can help your SEO efforts from that standpoint.

As this blog post and other recent developments at Google demonstrate, you can’t go wrong when it comes to SEO if you pay attention to these 3 things:

1.  Designing a website that provides users with a superb experience – from the way they navigate the site to the information they find there.

2.  Developing high quality, relevant content for your area of practice that people want to read to help them solve the problems they would hire you for, populated with relevant keywords.

3.  Being an active participant on social media networks that your prospects and clients frequent, sharing all that great content you’ve developed for your website and your blog and engaging online with your target market.

Article by:

Stephen Fairley

Of:

The Rainmaker Institute

Call Waiting: Department of Justice (DOJ) to Maintain Scrutiny of Wireless Industry Consolidation

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

 

The wireless industry has seen steady consolidation since the late 1980s.  Recently, in late 2013, reports began circulating about a potential merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, the nation’s third and fourth-largest wireless carriers, respectively.  Last week, however, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, William Baer, the assistant attorney general for the antitrust division at the Department of Justice (DOJ), cautioned that it would be difficult for the Agency to approve a merger between any of the nation’s top four wireless providers.

T-Mobile’s CEO, John Legere, stated that a merger between his company and Sprint “would provide significant scale and capability.”  Baer, on the other hand, warned that “It’s going to be hard for someone to make a persuasive case that reducing four firms to three is actually going to improve competition for the benefit of American consumers,”  As a result, any future consolidation in the wireless industry is likely to face a huge hurdle in the form of DOJ’s careful scrutiny of any proposed transaction.

Much of the DOJ’s interest in the wireless industry stems from the Agency’s successful challenge of a proposed merger between T-Mobile and AT&T in 2011.  Since then, Baer believes consumers have benefitted from “much more favorable competitive conditions.”  In fact, T-Mobile gained 4.4 million customers in 2013, bringing optimism to the company’s financial outlook after years of losses.  In the final two quarters of 2013, T-Mobile’s growth bested that of both Sprint and AT&T.  The low-cost carrier attracted customers and shook up the competition by upending many of the terms consumers had come to expect from wireless carriers, as well as investing in network modernization and spectrum acquisition.  This flurry of activity has pushed the competition to respond with its own deals, resulting in “tangible consumer benefits of antitrust enforcement,” according to Baer.

The DOJ’s antitrust division has kept careful watch over the wireless industry the past few years. That scrutiny will remain, as the Agency persists to advocate that four wireless carriers are required for healthy market competition.  The cards are beginning to play out from the Agency’s decision, and as Baer stated, “competition today is driving enormous benefits in the direction of the American consumer.”

Article by:

Lisa A. Peterson

Of:

McDermott Will & Emery