Tag: legal

Understanding Domain and IP Reputation in Email Deliverability

If you’re in the legal field, you’re well acquainted with the ways in which a good (or bad!) reputation can have an enormous impact on your practice’s success. Email deliverability is no different; mailbox providers (MBPs) use a variety of factors to determine what kind of reputation should be associated with your emails. Let’s break it down:

IP Reputation

An IP address is like a home address for your computer on the internet or local network, ensuring data sent from your computer reaches the correct destination and that data sent to you arrives at your computer.

When it comes to email, the IP address from which it originates is not just a technical detail—it carries a distinct reputation with it, much like a credit score. Just as lenders use credit scores to gauge the financial reliability of a person, MBPs evaluate an IP’s history to determine its trustworthiness. This reputation is shaped by different variables including:

  • Email volume and its consistency (or lack thereof)
  • Frequency of those emails being marked as spam
  • Bounce rates

If an IP address consistently sends out high-quality, relevant emails that recipients engage with, it’s much more likely to enjoy a positive reputation. On the flip side, its reputation can quickly plummet if it becomes associated with behaviors such as:

  • Sending large quantities of unsolicited email
  • High bounce rates
  • High frequency of spam complaints

A damaged IP reputation can have significant consequences that lead Email Service Providers (ESPs) to filter or block emails from that IP. This affects the sender’s ability to reach their intended audience effectively.

Domain Reputation

A domain, often recognized as a website or the web address, is a unique name that identifies a website or email address on the internet.

Every domain that sends email carries its own reputation, akin to a business’s standing in the community. This reputation is shaped by various behaviors and practices associated with the email you send:

  • Engagement
    • Mailbox providers want to see that your subscribers are engaged
    • They rely on hundreds of different signals to filter email, but engagement is heavily weighted.
    • Any time your subscribers show strong interest or engagement in your content, it’s a big win for your overall deliverability
  • Permission
    • Sending unsolicited email is a surefire way to harm your domain’s reputation
    • Unsolicited email is highly likely to result in spam complaints or even a spamtrap hit
    • Any domain associated with large numbers of spam complaints raises serious alarms for mailbox providers
  • Bounces
    • Large numbers of bounces can decrease trust in your domain
    • Because of this, it’s important to regularly curate and update your email lists Sending emails to old, unengaged, or invalid addresses often results in high bounce rates
    • List hygiene practices such as removing inactive subscribers or those who haven’t engaged in a long time are an effective preventative measure
  • History
    • Your domain’s email-sending history plays a significant role in its reputation
    • A consistent track record of sending high-quality, engaging emails can enhance your domain’s standing while any past transgressions, like sending to purchased lists or being flagged by spam traps, can linger and affect future deliverability
    • MBPs have a long memory, so it’s important to avoid these problems wherever possible
  • Authentication
    • Many inbox providers won’t accept your mail if it isn’t able to pass email authentication protocols like SPF (Sender Policy Framework) and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail)
    • If you have a sending domain validated within Lawmatics, SPF and DKIM are automatically implemented when you add our CNAME records to your domain
    • However, if you remove or alter those records, there’s a good chance that authentication will fail and your mail will bounce
  • Blocklists
    • Having your domain listed on a blocklist can have a major effect on your deliverability
    • That being said, it’s worth noting that anyone can create a blocklist and not all of them are reputable or affect your email delivery

Ultimately, you and your firm play a major role in your domain’s reputation. Being mindful of the content you send, maintaining updated email lists, and engaging with your subscribers in a meaningful way aren’t just strategies to maintain a strong domain reputation; they’re essential steps to elevate your firm’s credibility. They also serve to enhance client engagement and secure consistent deliverability for your communications.

©2023 — Lawmatics
Article by Shay Paris of Lawmatics
For more articles on legal marketing, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

US Halts Visa Services in Israel, Focuses on Assisting US Citizens

The United States has halted immigrant and nonimmigrant visa services in Israel amid ongoing security concerns.

‌‌Key Points:

  • Visa services are unavailable at this time at the U.S Embassy in Jerusalem or the Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv. Non-U.S. citizens in need of emergency visa services should request an expedited appointment at a U.S. embassy or consulate other than Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
  • U.S. citizens in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza who would like assistance should fill out this crisis intake form, which allows the U.S. State Department to respond to requests from evacuees in leaving or obtaining other routine or emergency passport or citizen services or information.
  • Commercial flight availability remains limited out of Ben Gurion Airport, but the U.S. government is facilitating charter flights and other modes of transportation for U.S. citizens. The State Department said these flights will continue until at least Oct. 19.
  • The Israeli government has extended the validity of work visas until Nov. 9, 2023, for all foreign nationals in the country whose Israeli visas will expire within the next month.
  • Up-to-date information is available on the Embassy’s News & Events and Travel Alerts pages.

BAL Analysis: Visa services are not available in Israel at this time. The situation continues to evolve and travel rules and procedures may change with little or no notice. U.S. citizens in Israel are encouraged to monitor State Department websites for updates.

©2023 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.

Business Immigration Could Be Impacted if Congress Fails to Fund Government Through FY 2024

On September 30, 2023, President Joe Biden signed into law stopgap funding legislation that temporarily averted a government shutdown. The legislation, which passed the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support and extended funding for the federal government for a period of forty-five days, will keep the government running through November 17, 2023.

Quick Hits

  • A recently enacted stopgap funding measure has allowed the government to continue operations, including immigration services, through November 17, 2023.
  • If Congress cannot reach an agreement to fund the federal government before November 17, 2023, a partial government shutdown may occur.
  • A government shutdown would disrupt federal agencies that are responsible for immigration-related services and benefits. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a fee-generating agency; during past government shutdowns, USCIS offices generally continued to operate.
  • The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is not fee generating, and, consequently, the department’s operations were significantly hindered during previous government shutdowns. As a result, any immigration petition that requires a DOL pre-filing will likely be impacted.

The most significant business immigration impacts of a government shutdown on U.S. employers may include:

  • the DOL taking the Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG) system offline, resulting in a suspension of new labor condition applications (LCAs) that are required for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 nonimmigrant petitions;
    • a DOL suspension of PERM labor certifications and prevailing wage determinations (PWD), which would further extend already lengthy PERM and PWD processing times; and
    • possible visa processing delays at U.S. consulates. While the U.S. Department of State is partially funded by visa application fees, it is possible that nonemergency services could be suspended during a prolonged shutdown.

Next Steps

While Congress temporarily averted a government shutdown, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have not reached an agreement on an appropriations bill to fund the federal government through the entirety of fiscal year (FY) 2024. The risk of a government shutdown remains if Congress is not able to resolve spending and policy disagreements prior to November 17, 2023.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Article by  Katie W. Desmond of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
For more articles on business immigration, visit the NLR Immigration section.

AI Versus Westlaw Copyright Bellwether Hurtles Toward Jury as Summary Judgment Largely Denied

In one of the first lawsuits to allege that generative AI companies violate the U.S. Copyright Act by using copyrighted works to train machine learning models, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Delaware Circuit Court recently denied the majority of issues raised in cross motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff Thomson Reuters and defendant Ross Intelligence Inc.  The court declined to issue a dispositive ruling on the hot-button question of whether the fair use doctrine protects generative AI companies that use copyrighted materials to train their programs.

Thomson Reuters (owner of Westlaw) sued Ross Intelligence, a legal-research generative AI startup, in May 2020, alleging that Ross was liable for both copyright infringement and tortious interference with contract.  The allegations against Ross stem from its endeavor to create a search engine that uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to provide answers to commonly asked legal questions.

In need of material to train its generative AI, Ross attempted to obtain a license to use Westlaw.  When Westlaw turned Ross away, it asked third-party legal research companies to provide it with legal material — much of which those legal research companies obtained from Westlaw.  Thomson Reuters contends that Ross copied large portions of Westlaw’s Headnotes and Key Number System.

After Ross’s motion to dismiss the copyright claim was denied in March of 2021, the parties each moved for summary judgment on a multitude of issues.  Most notably, Thomson Reuters moved for summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim, and both sides moved for summary judgment on Ross’s assertion of fair use.

On the issue of copyright infringement, Judge Bibas granted Thomson Reuters’ motion on the limited issue that Ross “copied at least portions of” Westlaw’s work.  However, the remaining issues of the copyright claim — the validity of Thomson Reuters’ copyright and the substantial similarity of Ross’s work — were denied summary judgment and will go to a jury.

On the issue of fair use, Ross contends that its use of Thomson Reuters’ materials, even if found to be copyright protected, was permissible.

The question of fair use protection for generative AI developers is significant because all generative AI requires the input of a vast amount of information to train its machine learning and develop its content.  Intellectual property law comes into play where the training materials — the “input” into the AI — are copyright protected.  When the input material is copyright protected, AI developers may seek to rely on the fair use doctrine to use copyright-protected works without permission from the copyright holder.

As discussed in the court’s opinion, whether the use of copyrighted material is fair depends on the balance of four factors — the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work.  Courts tend to give the most weight to the first and fourth factors.

The first factor, the purpose and character of the use, looks to the commerciality and transformativeness of the use of the copyrighted work.  While Judge Bibas held that Ross’s use of Thomson Reuters’ materials was undoubtedly commercial in nature, which weighs against finding fair use, the court could not say as a matter of law whether Ross’ works were sufficiently transformative.  Each party offers a differing account of exactly how Ross used the Westlaw information — did Ross merely translate Westlaw’s headnotes into numerical data that would later be displayed by its AI search engine?  Or did it, as Ross contends, study Westlaw’s headnotes and opinion quotes only to analyze language patterns rather than replicate Westlaw’s protected expressions?

According to the court, the answers to these questions fall within the discretion of a jury. In this regard, the court noted that Ross’s use was “transformative intermediate copying if Ross’s AI only studied the language patterns in the headnotes to learn how to produce judicial opinion quotes.  But if Thomson Reuters is right that Ross used the untransformed text of its headnotes to get its AI to replicate and reproduce the creative drafting done by Westlaw’s attorney editors,” then Ross’s argument that its work was sufficiently transformative might fail.

As to the other three factors for fair use, the court similarly held that they could not be resolved on summary judgment because of remaining questions of fact.  However, the court noted that the second factor — the nature of Thomson Reuters’ copyrighted work — seemed to favor fair use.  Specifically, Westlaw’s Key Number system is a method of organization that “inherently involves significantly less creative or original expression” than traditionally protected materials, and the Headnotes are “akin to news reporting” that must be carefully separated from the unprotected underlying facts of the judicial opinions they synthesize. A jury trial in this case might yield the first judgment on issues related to generative AI, copyright, and fair use.  This case could have an impact not only on the AI and machine learning industry, but also the public interest as a whole while the world continues to adjust to the myriad new realities and resulting issues of first impression on the new AI frontier.

© 2023 Vedder Price
Article by Keeley Sawyer of Vedder Price
For more articles on AI copyright, visit the NLR Intellectual Property law section.

California’s “Delete Act” Significantly Expands Requirements for Data Brokers

California recently passed a groundbreaking new law aimed at further regulating the data broker industry. California is already one of only three states (along with Oregon and Vermont) that require data brokers—businesses that collect and sell personal information from consumers with whom the business does not have a direct relationship—to meet certain registration requirements.

Under the new law, the regulation of data brokers—including the registration requirements—falls within the purview of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and requires data brokers to comply with expanded disclosure and record keeping requirements. Notably, the law also requires the CPPA to make an “accessible deletion mechanism” available to consumers at no cost by January 1, 2026. The tool is intended to act as a single “delete button,” allowing consumers to request the deletion of all of their personal information held by registered data brokers within the state.

Putting it into practice: Businesses considered “data brokers” should carefully review the new and expanded requirements and develop a compliance plan, as certain aspects of the law (e.g., the enhanced registry requirements) go into effect as soon as January 31, 2024.

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
Article by Brittany Walter of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
For more articles on data brokers, visit the NLR Communications, Media and Internet section.

Chat with Caution: The Growing Data Privacy Compliance and Litigation Risk of Chatbots

In a new wave of privacy litigation, plaintiffs have recently filed dozens of class action lawsuits in state and federal courts, primarily in California, seeking damages for alleged “wiretapping” by companies with public-facing websites. The complaints assert a common theory: that website owners using chatbot functions to engage with customers are violating state wiretapping laws by recording chats and giving service providers access to them, which plaintiffs label “illegal eavesdropping.”

Chatbot wiretapping complaints seek substantial damages from defendants and assert new theories that would dramatically expand the application of state wiretapping laws to customer support functions on business websites.

Although there are compelling reasons why courts should decline to extend wiretapping liability to these contexts, early motions to dismiss have met mixed outcomes. As a result, businesses that use chatbot functions to support customers now face a high-risk litigation environment, with inconsistent court rulings to date, uncertain legal holdings ahead, significant statutory damages exposure, and a rapid uptick in plaintiff activity.

Strict State Wiretapping Laws

Massachusetts and California have some of the most restrictive wiretapping laws in the nation, requiring all parties to consent to a recording, in contrast to the one-party consent required under federal and many state laws. Those two states have been key battlegrounds for plaintiffs attempting to extend state privacy laws to website functions, partly because they provide for significant statutory damages per violation and an award of attorney’s fees.

Other states with wiretapping statutes requiring the consent of all parties include Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. As in Massachusetts and California, litigants in Florida and Pennsylvania have started asserting wiretapping claims based on website functions.

Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Extend State Wiretapping Laws to Chatbot Functions

Chatbot litigation is a product of early favorable rulings in cases targeting other website technologies, refashioned to focus on chat functions. Chatbots allow users to direct inquiries to AI virtual assistants or human customer service representatives. Chatbot functions are often deployed using third-party vendor software, and when chat conversations are recorded, those vendors may be provided access to live recordings or transcripts.

This most recent wave of plaintiffs now claim that recording chat conversations and making them accessible to vendors violates state wiretapping laws, with liability for both the website operator and the vendor. However, there are several reasons why the application of wiretapping laws in this context is inappropriate, and defendants are asserting these legal arguments in early dispositive motion practice with mixed results.

What Businesses Can Do to Address Growing Chatbot Litigation Risk

Despite compelling legal arguments for why these suits should be stopped, businesses with website chat functions should exercise caution to avoid being targeted, as we expect to see chatbot wiretap claims to skyrocket. This litigation risk is present in all two-party consent states, but especially in Massachusetts and California. Companies should beware that they can be targeted in multiple states, even if they do not offer products or services directly to consumers.

In this environment, a review and update of your company’s website for data privacy compliance, including chatbot activities, is advisable to avoid expensive litigation. These measures include:

  • Incorporating clear disclosure language and robust affirmative consent procedures into the website’s chat functions, including specific notification in the function itself that the chatbot is recording and storing communications
  • Expanding website dispute resolution terms, including terms that could reduce the risk of class action litigation and mass arbitration
  • Updating the website’s privacy policy to accurately and clearly explain what data, if any, is recorded, stored, and transmitted to service providers through its chat functions, ideally in a dedicated “chat” section
  • Considering data minimization measures in connection with website chat functions
  • Evaluating third-party software vendors’ compliance history, including due diligence to ensure a complete understanding of how chatbot data is collected, transmitted, stored, and used, and whether the third party’s privacy policies are acceptable

Companies may also want to consider minimizing aspects of their chatbots that have a high annoyance factor – such as blinking “notifications” – to reduce the likelihood of attracting a suit. This list is not comprehensive, and businesses should ensure their legal teams are aware of their website functions and data collection practices.

©2023 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles on privacy, visit the NLR Communications, Media and Internet section.

FTC Junk Fee Ban Proposed Rule Released

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a new proposed rule to ban junk fees, which are unexpected, hidden, and “bogus” charges that are often applied later in a transaction. The FTC announced the proposed rule on October 11, 2023 after receiving 12,000 comments from consumers about how these fees impact them. The FTC is currently “seeking a new round of comments on a proposed junk fee rule,” according to a press release issued by the agency.

Junk fees include charges added when purchasing concert tickets online, making hotel and resort reservations, changing airline booking and seat choice fees, paying utility bills and renting an apartment. Junk fees are sometimes called partitioned pricing, drip pricing or shrouded pricing, according to Ashish Pradhan of Cornerstone Research. Consumers told the FTC that sellers often don’t say what the fees are for, and if they’re getting anything in return for paying them.

“All too often, Americans are plagued with unexpected and unnecessary fees they can’t escape. These junk fees now cost Americans tens of billions of dollars per year—money that corporations are extracting from working families just because they can,”  FTC Chair Lina M. Khan stated today. “By hiding the total price, these junk fees make it harder for consumers to shop for the best product or service and punish businesses who are honest upfront. The FTC’s proposed rule to ban junk fees will save people money and time and make our markets fairer and more competitive.”

The FTC estimates that junk fees can result in “tens of billions of dollars per year in unexpected costs” for consumers, and more than 50 million hours of time spent searching for the total price of short-term lodging and tickets for live events per year.

What Is the FTC Junk Fee Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule requires businesses to include all mandatory fees to be disclosed in pricing and prohibits sellers from applying any hidden fees during the transaction. The FTC said that this would help consumers “know exactly how much they are paying and what they are getting and spur companies to compete on offering the lowest price.”

Specifically, the Junk Fee Proposed Rule bans:

  • Hidden fees. These fees drive up the price of purchases, often before the transaction is complete. The proposed rule also bars businesses from advertising prices that exclude or hide mandatory fees.
  • Bogus fees. The FTC said that companies often charge “bogus fees.” The agency characterizes these fees as charges that consumers are asked to pay without knowing what their purpose is. The proposed rule requires businesses to tell consumers what these fees are for, what the amount is up front and if the fees can be refunded.

The proposed rule allows the FTC to issue monetary penalties against noncompliant companies and provide refunds to affected consumers.

Junk Fee Regulatory Measures from Other Federal Agencies

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The FTC isn’t the only federal agency targeting junk fees. Other federal agencies are also acting against a variety of add on fees. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) started implementing its Broadband Consumer Labels tool aimed at increasing price transparency.

“No one likes surprise charges on their bill. Consumers deserve to know exactly what they are paying for when they sign up for communications services. But when it comes to these bills, what you see isn’t always what you get,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel on March 23, 2023. “Instead, consumers have often been saddled with additional junk fees that may exorbitantly raise the price of their previously agreed-to monthly charges. To combat this, we’re implementing Broadband Consumer Labels, a new tool that will increase price transparency and reduce cost confusion, help consumers compare services, and provide ‘all-in-pricing’ so that every American can understand upfront and without any surprises how much they can expect to be paying for these services.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Additionally, in March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report on the use of junk fees “in deposit accounts and in multiple loan servicing markets, including the auto, mortgage, student, and payday/small loan sectors,” according to Greenberg Traurig.

“Americans are fed up with the junk fees that are creeping across the economy,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra in the FTC press release. “The FTC’s proposed rule will protect families and honest businesses from race-to-the-bottom abuses that cost us billions of dollars each year. If finalized, the CFPB will enforce the rule against violators in the financial industry and ensure that these firms play fairly.”\

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

The Biden Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a July 19, 2023, press release, specifically address add-on fees in rental housing. “Earlier this year, we called for reform in the housing industry to increase transparency for renters across the country, reflecting the Biden-Harris administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s commitment,” said HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge in the FTC press release.

According to HUD rental application fees can be up to $100 or more per application, and, importantly, they often exceed the cost of conducting the background and credit checks. Given that prospective renters often apply for multiple units over the course of their housing search, these application fees can add up to hundreds of dollars.

The Department of Transportation (DOT)

The Department of Transportation in a March 2023 press release addressed aggravating airline fees: after DOT secured commitments from major U.S. airlines to provide free rebooking, meals, and hotels when they are responsible for stranding passengers. Dot stated that they were working to stop airlines from forcing parents to pay to sit next to their kids by requiring airlines to disclose hidden fees for things like extra bags. DOT stated that they helped secure billions of dollars in refunds for passengers whose flights are canceled.

In 2022, Secretary Buttigieg pressed U.S. airlines to do more for passengers who had a flight canceled or delayed because of the airline, by informing the CEOs of the 10 largest U.S. airlines that the DOT would publish a dashboard on amenities and services provided such as rebooking, meals, or hotels in the event of a controllable delay or cancellation. Prior to Buttigieg’s urging, none of the 10 largest U.S. airlines guaranteed meals or hotels when a delay or cancellation was within the airlines’ control, and only one offered free rebooking.   As of March 2023, all of the 10 largest U.S. airlines guarantee meals and rebooking, and nine guarantee hotels when an airline issue causes a cancellation or delay.

What’s Next?

Consumers can submit comments to the FTC electronically for 60 days once the notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. Consumers can also send written comments to the FTC—instructions on how to do this can be found in the Federal Register notice under the “Supplementary Information” section.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC
For more articles on the FTC, visit the NLR Antitrust and Trade section.

Pay Frequency Claims Pass Muster in New York

After avoiding the limelight for decades, New York State’s manual worker pay frequency law has taken center stage.

Specifically, New York Labor Law (NYLL) § 191(1)(a) requires private employers to pay manual workers weekly, rather than semi-monthly. As we have previously reported, the law is broadly applied to cover not only manual laborers in the traditional sense of the term but to a wide range of physical work, including retail, food preparation, home care, and more.

Ever since a New York appellate court equipped manual workers with a private right of action, pay frequency claims have surged, with recent cases proving difficult for employers to dismiss at the outset. Unless and until a different appellate court reverses course, employers can expect these actions to keep rolling in.

Surge in Claims After Vega

Until recently, enforcement of the pay frequency law was left to the New York Department of Labor (NYDOL), which imposed modest penalties for pay frequency violations. In the 2019 case Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management LLC, however, a New York Appellate Division Court held that § 191 permits employees to seek liquidated damages for the untimely payment of wages, even if the wages are paid in full. The Vega decision equipped manual workers with a private right of action and spawned an influx of litigation in this area.

Employers that violate the pay frequency law must pay the full amount of unpaid wages and may be liable for liquidated damages equal to 100% of untimely-paid wages, as well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. (Certain employers with at least 1,000 workers may request that the NYDOL grant an exemption to the weekly-pay requirement.) For those covered by the law, New York’s six-year statute of limitations means pay frequency claims could continue to mount.

Manual Workers Defined Broadly

While the NYLL defines “manual worker” as “a mechanic, workingman or laborer,” the NYDOL imposes a more contemporary and expansive definition, interpreting “manual workers” to include those who spend at least 25% of their working time engaged in physical labor. Physical labor can include countless tasks, including stocking shelves, standing or walking for long periods of time, preparing food, styling hair, cleaning a workplace, and providing care for others. Therefore, a wide array of jobs, from retail to home care workers, could be covered under the pay frequency law. Courts undertake factual, case-by-case inquiries to determine whether a plaintiff is considered a manual worker.

Federal Courts Follow Suit

Federal courts in New York have uniformly followed the Vega ruling by allowing claims brought under § 191(1)(a) to proceed. They have rejected arguments that were once thought to be potential hurdles, such as a plaintiff’s lack of standing for failure to identify a concrete harm. Unless and until an appellate court retreats from Vega, pay frequency claims will likely continue to advance through the courts.

To avoid costly litigation, covered New York employers are advised to evaluate whether they employ manual workers as the term is defined by the NYDOL and to consider revising their pay frequency practices as applicable.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more articles on labor law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Emojis in eDiscovery

Emojis Pose Challenges to Lawyers, Juries & Discovery Specialists

We have all used emojis.  Whether in our text messages or in our IMs, these wordless communications are commonplace.  In fact, by some estimates, more than 10 billion emojis are sent every day in various electronic messaging mediums. With the use of chat and mobile platforms only increasing, what do lawyers and eDiscovery professionals need to know about these marks and how they impact the discovery process and the courtroom?

What is an Emoji?

Emojis are small cartoon images that are interpreted and supported at the discretion of each application developer.  The predecessor to the emoji was the emoticon.

Why Are Emojis Complicated?

Anyone reading eDiscovery content knows that these tiny little carton pictures while often playful and cute, can be a challenge to identify, collect and process.  Part of the challenge is volume driven but part is platform driven.  Specifically, the Unicode Consortium, which is the standards body that allows software to recognize text characters and display them uniformly, acknowledges thousands of different emojis. But that number includes variables of the same image – for example different genders and skin tonality. And while much work has been done to standardize emojis, different systems support different emojis.  For example, while a slice of pizza is likely recognized universally, in reality a slice from the popular Domino’s® franchise looks different from a slice bought at the local brick oven pizza parlor.  Similarly, when dealing in emojis, a slice of pizza viewed on one device will look different than one viewed on a device by a different company.  For those of you who have ever shared a text among different phone operating system users, you have undoubtedly learned this lesson before now.  Indeed, if you ever received the question mark inside the rectangular shaped box – which appears when the recipient’s application does not support the sender’s application – the emoji image is indecipherable.   Complicating this phenomenon is that different instant messaging systems have proprietary emojis and additionally allow users to create their own emojis – none of which are acknowledged by Unicode.org. Add to that the fact that emojis often evolve.  For example, the “pistol” emoji was changed in 2016 by one operating system to a less dangerous version of itself (i.e., a “water pistol” or “toy gun”).  But, when received by a different platform, that water pistol or toy gun emoji might still appear to be a regular “gun” or “pistol” emoji.

Emojis in Litigation

Assuming you have been able to secure during discovery relevant emojis, use during litigation can be paved with surprises.  In fact, once a wordless communication (i.e., an emoji) is admitted into the record, courts and juries will look to the surrounding circumstances to interpret the communication.  And, while this analysis generally includes scrutiny of the accompanying text and whether the emoji alters the meaning of the message, how does one account for platform interpretation issues?  Meaning – what if the water gun I sent from my device is received by another device in a way that reflects a menacing weapon thereby manifesting a different intent to the recipient than what was intended by the sender.  At first glance, the emoji may seem innocuous, such as a simple smile to communicate happiness but taken in the context or community in which the communication is used, the meaning may be interpreted differently by the sender and/or recipient.  Indeed, emojis should not be considered a universal language having universal meaning and, like certain physical actions, the meaning of symbols can vary by community or culture.  Consider for example that the “thumbs up” emoji is considered vulgar in many countries in the Middle East yet typically considered a positive expression in most other countries.[1]

Because the complexities of interpreting the meaning and intent of the emoji in court is exacerbated by competing platforms, focused inquiry on the sender’s and recipient’s intent, surrounding circumstances and accompanying text may be critical. Unfortunately, 1 + 1 does not always equal 2 and things may not be as they may appear merely because of a certain electronically generated animated face.

[1] A few cases involving emojis include Ghanam v. Does (where the Michigan Court of Appeals had to analyze the circumstances surrounding the use of the emoji “sticking out its tongue” within a communication in a defamation case); Commonwealth v. Danzey, (smile face embedded in social media did not immunize claims defendant stalked and harassed victim where wording demonstrated criminal intent); Kryzac v. State, (Tennessee case where “frowning face” emoji used as evidence of relationship between defendant and victim); State v. Disabato, (defendant in Ohio was convicted of telecommunications harassment for sending unwanted text messages, some of which included “rodent” emojis); Commonwealth v. Foster (Pennsylvania defendant on probation for a drug-related conviction raised the suspicion of his probation officer when he posted photographs depicting guns and money along with three “pill” emoji).

©2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
Article by Kathryn C. Cole of Greenberg Traurig, LLP
For more articles on eDiscovery, visit the NLR Litigation section.

EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Guidance on Harassment in the Modern Workplace

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued long-awaited enforcement guidance on workplace harassment. The “Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2023, advises employers on handling new workplace realties, including LGBTQ rights, online misconduct, abortion, and a number of different types of harassment.

This new guidance is the first voted document the EEOC has issued on harassment since its “Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors” in 1999.

The EEOC’s new guidance responds to the changing workplace landscape and salient issues confronting employers as a result of the #MeToo movement, the COVID-19 pandemic, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that sex discrimination includes bias on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

LGBTQ Harassment

Consistent with its long-standing position amplified by the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, the EEOC guidance emphasizes that sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

For example, the guidance discusses misgendering as a type of actionable harassment, stating that refusing to use a name or pronoun “consistent with the individual’s gender identity” may constitute harassment. According to the EEOC, another potential form of sex-based harassment is refusing to allow an employee to use a bathroom that matches their gender identity.

Further, religious accommodations for employees with sincerely held religious beliefs do not include allowing an employee with such accommodations to create a hostile work environment for an LGBTQ co-worker. In other words, the obligation to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs does not extend to religious beliefs that infringe on another employee’s protected category.

Online Harassment

The EEOC guidance also addresses remote work, teleconferencing, and social media issues that have grown out of the way employees work coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance emphasizes that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile work environment.

Going a step further, the EEOC also notes that employers may be liable for harassment occurring online, even if only over employees’ private social media accounts. If put on notice of the conduct, the employer may need to take remedial steps or disciplinary action against the offending employee for their non-workplace and non-worktime conduct.

Harassment Based on Reproductive Decision-Making

The draft guidance notes that sex-based harassment includes mistreatment based on an employee’s pregnancy and reproductive decisions, such as decisions about contraception or abortion. This is consistent with the EEOC’s longtime stance that terminating a pregnancy constitutes a pregnancy-related condition protected under the law.

The EEOC’s proposed guidance, which remains open for public comment until November 1, 2023, covers a number of other topics. Given the comprehensive guidance and constantly changing landscape of the modern workplace, employers are strongly encouraged to seek advice of counsel to ensure compliant policies and practices. Employers’ harassment policies in particular should be carefully reviewed in light of this guidance, including policies on religion, race, and national origin, in addition to sexual harassment policies.

Listen to this post

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more articles on employment law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.