The National Law Review would like to advise you of the upcoming Perrin Conference regarding Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation:
Thursday, March 1st – Friday, March 2nd, 2012
Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel
Beverly Hills, CA
Category: Consumer Protection
Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference
The National Law Review would like to advise you of the upcoming Perrin Conference regarding Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation:
Thursday, March 1st – Friday, March 2nd, 2012
Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel
Beverly Hills, CA
Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference
The National Law Review would like to advise you of the upcoming Perrin Conference regarding Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation:
Thursday, March 1st – Friday, March 2nd, 2012
Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel
Beverly Hills, CA
Four Commonly Asked Questions About Patient Medical Information: VIDEO
Published in the National Law Review recently an article by Kimberly Leonard of the Center for Public Integrity regarding the 4 Most Commonly Asked Questions About Patient Medical Information:
The Center for Public integrity interviewed Harley Geiger, policy counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), about why patients should request a copy of their health records from their doctor.
The questions are based off a guide CDT issued on its website. It discusses the rights patients have to their health information and how they can correct errors that might appear in their record. It also details how they can protect their medical information.
Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.
Google, Microsoft Assume Roles of Judge, Jury and Executioner on the Web
Published December 6, 2011 in The National Law Review an article by Nicole Kardell of Ifrah Law regarding Google, Yahoo! and Bing have suspended their accounts with hundreds of advertisers and agents associated with mortgage programs under federal investigation:
Google, Yahoo! and Bing have suspended their accounts with hundreds of advertisers and agents associated with mortgage programs under federal investigation. The move by Google and Microsoft (Microsoft powers Bing and Yahoo!) has basically shut down these businesses: Without the vehicle of the search engines, these sites cannot effectively generate traffic.
Why did Google and Microsoft cut the cord of these companies, and is there anything the companies can do? Google and Microsoft (we’ll call them the Government’s “Judge, Jury, and Executioner” or the “Enforcers”) acted upon the request of SIGTARP, a federal agency charged with preventing fraud, waste, and abuse under TARP’s Home Affordable Modification Program. (The pressure started a while back, as we wrote last March.)
SIGTARP is investigating mortgage programs that it believes have been wrongly charging “struggling homeowners a fee in exchange for false promises of lowering the homeowner’s mortgage.”
According to a source at SIGTARP, the agency handed Google and Microsoft a list of some 125 mortgage “schemes.” Apparently, the Enforcers then took that list, identified advertisers and agents associated with those mortgage programs, and opted to suspend relations with those companies (about 500 advertisers and agents for Google and about 400 for Microsoft). (SIGTARP’s announcements on these actions can be found here andhere.)
So it looks as if these companies have been penalized through government action without any adjudicative process, merely through government pressure on private companies, i.e. Google and Microsoft. (More analysis from us on this to come.)
It’s easy to understand why the Enforcers would feel pressure. Google just settled with the Department of Justice and agreed to pay more than $500 million for its role in publishing prescription drug ads from Canada. Those familiar with that settlement may see Google’s recent actions for SIGTARP as follow-on. Likely Google is more apt to buckle to the Feds quickly because of the costly settlement, but the matters are not directly related. In fact, the prescription drug settlement agreement relates to prescription drug ads only.
While the SIGTARP investigation is “ongoing,” and Google and Microsoft are continuing to cooperate with the agency, what can companies who have been caught up in this firestorm do? The Enforcers do, fortunately, have grievance processes (see, for instance, Google’s grievance process here).
Either on their own, or with some added strength through legal representation, the companies can try to make their cases regarding the content and nature of the ads at issue.
What is the next step going to be? If the Federal Trade Commission identifies, say, a group of websites that it believes are promoting bogus weight-loss schemes, will the Enforcers simply move to shut off their access to the Web, without further ado?
ZIPped Back Up: Williams-Sonoma Gains Federal Dismissal Of New Jersey Consumer Privacy Claim in Feder
Recently published in the National Law Review an article by Theodore C. Max of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP regarding the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey joined the New Jersey Superior Court in weighing in on the issue of whether a retailer violates consumer privacy state law by requesting a customer’s zip code at the point of purchase.
In Feder v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey joined the New Jersey Superior Court in weighing in on the issue of whether a retailer violates consumer privacy state law by requesting a customer’s zip code at the point of purchase. Feder was brought by the same plaintiff’s lawyers and with claims similar to those in the state court case Imbert v. Harmon Stores, Inc.(Bed, Bath & Beyond). Imbert was decided last month, but without any written decision, and permitted that case to proceed past the pleading stage. The District Court in Feder, however, issued the first written opinion under the New Jersey statutes, finding that allegations that a zip code was verbally requested could not support a claim under New Jersey law.
Both Feder and Imbert involved plaintiffs suing under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), alleging that a store’s requirement that customers provide their zip codes during a credit card transaction violates their rights under the TCCWNA. The TCCNWA prohibits a seller from “offering, entering into, giving or displaying a written consumer contract or notice that violates a clearly established right of the consumer.” N.J. Stat. Ann. 56: 12-15. As a predicate for the TCCNWA claim, both Feder and Imbert relied on the Restrictions on Information Required to Complete Credit Card Transactions (“Restriction Statute“). The Restriction Statute prohibits a retailer from requiring a customer to provide “personal identification information” to complete a credit card transaction, thus providing the basis for violation of a “clearly established consumer right.”
Senior District Judge Walls in Feder granted Williams-Sonoma’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege conduct that violated the TCCWNA because she failed to identify a particular provision of a written consumer contract that violated her rights. Feder pled that the credit card transaction form constituted the written consumer contract. Judge Walls, skeptical of this assertion, reasoned that even if the form qualified as a contract, plaintiff’s recorded zip code and verbal request for the same did not constitute a contract provision. Consequently, Judge Wales found that plaintiff failed to satisfy the elements of TCCNWA because “[t]he alleged requirement that plaintiff provide her zip code would only violate the TCCWNA if it was a provision of a written contract.” Plaintiff also alleged that her rights were violated under the Restriction Statute — not by the recording of her zip code — but by the requirement that she provide her zip code. However, the Restriction Statute does not provide for a private right of action, and, as discussed above, a claim under Plaintiff’s proposed private vehicle for enforcement, the TCCNWA, failed.
Williams-Sonoma also argued that if the credit card transaction was considered a written consumer contract, the court must consider all terms of that “contract” including the point of sale signage at Williams-Sonoma stores expressly stating that when a zip code is requested it is used for marketing purposes, and that providing it is voluntary and is not a condition of processing the transaction. The Restriction Statute differs critically from California’s Song-Beverly in that New Jersey’s Restriction Statute only applies to information being “required,” whereas Song-Beverly also applies to a “request.” This issue was not presented inImbert. However, since the District Court ruled on the TWNCCA, it did not need to reach this issue.
One additional anomaly between the Feder and Imbert cases is that in Imbert the state court permitted the plaintiff to proceed with an invasion of privacy claim. However, when presented with Williams-Sonoma’s Motion to Dismiss, Feder abandoned her invasion of privacy claim in her Opposition because the Motion revealed she had previously provided her contact information to Williams-Sonoma. Feder also filed a cross-motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint, which the District Court denied as futile.