WebProNews

Tag: Lawsuits

  • Facebook Settles Sponsored Stories Lawsuit With $10 Million To Charity

    A northern California district judge has said that “economic injury” could be proven by plaintiffs suing Facebook over Sponsored Stories, and Facebook has agreed to settle the lawsuit with a $10 million charity donation.

    The complaint at the heart of Angel Fraley et al vs. Facebook was with the legality of the company’s relatively new types of ads – Sponsored Stories. You’ve probably seen them appearing with more frequency inside your News Feed – “Sam Johnson likes Starbucks – Promoted,” and such. Sponsored Stories allows advertisers to promote a user’s activity, for instance liking a product or playing a certain game, after the fact.

    Of course, the thought behind Sponsored Stories is that a recommendation that looks like its coming from a friend or family member is worth a whole lot more than a standard ad you might see on the side of the page.

    For the five people involved in this lawsuit, Facebook’s Sponsored Stories are a violation of California law because they “publicize” user data without compensation, and the uncompensated users are also unable to opt out of having their activities (and names and images) used as adverts.

    According to Reuters the suit, which was seeking class-action status, was actually settled outside of court last month – but was just recently made public.

    In holding up the plaintiffs’ claim for economic damages, District Judge Lucy Koh said,

    “California has long recognized a right to protect one’s name and likeness against appropriation by others for their advantage.”

    While the Sponsored Story may continue to run up against California law, that’s not the only place where Facebook could see some opposition. This lawsuit is definitely not the first of its kind around the world. Back in April, a Vancouver woman filed a similar suit in a British Columbia court.

    She claimed that Facebook fails to acquire users’ consent or even give users notification that their likenesses are being used in Sponsored Stories, nor do they compensate them or allow them to opt-out. She claimed that these actions were in violation of Canadian law and called Facebook’s Sponsored Stories “high-handed, outrageous, wanton, reckless, callous, disgraceful, willful and entirely without care for the plaintiffs and Class members’ statutory right to control the use of their own names or portraits, and as such renders Facebook liable to pay punitive damages.”

    Facebook currently handles Sponsored Stories differently that more traditional advertisements that contain organic content from the advertiser as well:

    We sometimes allow businesses or anyone else to sponsor stories like the ones that show up in your News Feed, subject to the audience set for that story. While these are sponsored, they are different from ads because they don’t contain a message from the person that sponsored them. Your friends will see these stories even if you have opted out of the Show my social actions in Facebook Ads setting.

    The $10 million that Facebook will pay in the California case is part of a cy-pres settlement, which means that all of the money can go to charity.

  • Avoiding Being Served? You May Be Safe on Facebook

    A ruling from a U.S. District Court questions whether or not Facebook is an acceptable form of legal communication.

    In 2009, a Chase credit card opened by one Lorri Fortunato ran up $1,243 worth of charges, which went unpaid. Eventually, Chase began the collections process by garnering her wages. Lorri claimed that the credit card spending spree was not her doing, and must have been opened fraudulently by her estranged daughter Nicole. After Lorri filed a claim against Chase, the bank decided they needed to find Nicole.

    Chase bank told U.S. District Court Judge John Keenan that they exhausted the normal methods of serving papers and wanted to try doing it via Facebook.

    New York law outlines a few methods for “service of process,” including face-to-face, via someone at the target’s place of business or dwelling, and through the mail. If all of these methods proves impractical and court can allow for another method of delivery. The court ruled that service was indeed “impractical where the defendant could not be located by means of a diligent search.”

    But apparently, Facebook is not an acceptable method.

    Investigators found four possible physical addresses for Nicole, as well as a Facebook profile for a Nicole Fortunato residing in the area. Judge Keenan shot down the idea of service via Facebook:

    Service by Facebook is unorthodox to say the least, and this Court is unaware of any other court that has authorized such service. Furthermore, in those cases where service by email has been judicially approved, the movant supplied the Court with some facts indicating that the person to be served would be likely to receive the summons and complaint at the given email address.

    Here, Chase has not set forth any facts that would give the Court a degree of certainty that the Facebook profile its investigator located is in fact maintained by Nicole or that the email address listed on the Facebook profile is operational and accessed by Nicole. Indeed, the Court’s understanding is that anyone can make a Facebook profile using real, fake, or incomplete information, and thus, there is no way for the Court to confirm whether the Nicole Fortunato the investigator found is in fact the third-party Defendant to be served.

    So, in theory, if Chase could have shown with certainty that the Facebook account they had found was the Nicole Fortunato in question, the ruling may have been different. But the judge did say that service by Facebook was “unorthodox in the least” and mentioned that there’s now precedent for approve such action.

    In his conclusion, Judge Keenan ruled that Chase can only resort to “service by publication,” in other words ads in a local newspaper.

    Chase Bank Facebook Service

    [via PaidContent]

  • South Park Cites Fair Use, Wins “What What (In The Butt)” Infringement Case

    According to a ruling from the 7th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals, Butters is not a copyright infringer.

    The court upheld a lower court decision that ruled Viacom’s Comedy Partners were correct in their fair use defense concerning a 2008 South Park episode that lampooned a classic viral video from 2007 – Samwell’s “What What (In The Butt), which currently sits at over 47 million views.

    The lower court said that South Park’s version featuring the character Butters made “transformative” use of the original by somehow doing “the seemingly impossible — making the ‘WWITB’ video even more absurd by replacing the African-American male singer with a naive and innocent 9-year-old boy dressed in adorable outfits,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

    Brownmark Films, owners of the original What What (In The Butt) video claimed that the lower court had no right to consider a fair-use defense and throw out the case before a trial. The appeals court sided with the lower court.

    The crux of the decision rests on the fact that Brownmark cannot now oppose the claim of fair use, and even if they could they would fail because South Park’s version is a clear parody that “comments” on the original:

    This matter is simple because Brownmark, in response to SPDS’s motion, did not address fair use as applied to the WWITB videos, and instead insisted that the court could not consider the matter at a 12(b)(6) stage. Since Brownmark never opposed SPDS’s fair use argument in the dis tric t court , we conside r the argument waived.

    However, even if Brownmark were not barred from offering argument that SPDS did not engage in fair use, we agree with the district court that this is an obvious case of fair use. When a defendant raises a fair use defense claiming his or her work is a parody, a court can often decide the merits of the claim without discovery or a10 No. 11-2620
    trial. When the two works in this case are viewed side-byside, the South Park episode is clearly a parody of the original WWITB video, providing commentary on the ridiculousness of the original video and the viral nature of
    certain YouTube videos.

    One of the big things, long-term, that comes from this decision is that it affirms that it is possible to use the fair-use defense to get the case thrown out in the early stages of the suit.

    When all relevant facts are presented, the court may properly dismiss a case before discovery…

    Despite Brownmark’s assertions to the contrary, the only two pieces of evidence needed to decide the question of fair use in this case are the original version of WWITB and the episode at issue.

    Basically, all the court needed to see was the two videos side by side and they could make a decision. It was that obvious.

    I mean, take a look for yourself:

    Pretty open and shut from my point of view. If nothing else, these legal proceedings were worth it just to see What What (In The Butt) slip into the official record, abbreviated as “WWITB.”

  • Apple Agrees to $2.25 Million Settlement Over Australian iPad Ads

    When Apple launched the new iPad, it predictably advertised that the higher-priced version of the device was “4G capable.” It did this even in countries where the 4G capabilities of the device could not be used due to incompatible data networks within those countries. That brought the ire of consumer protection agencies in several countries, including Sweden and Australia. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) was especially forceful in asserting that Apple knew it was misleading Australian consumers by advertising the iPad as 4G capable in the country, and the group filed a lawsuit. Though Apple responded quickly with refunds for all customers in Australia who felt they had been mislead, it wasn’t enough for the ACCC and the court case continued. Around one month ago, Apple changed the branding for the 4G version of the iPad to “Wi-Fi + Cellular.”

    Today, a settlement has been reached between Apple and the ACCC. The Australian is reporting that Apple will pay $2.25 million to the ACCC and cover $300,000 of its legal costs. Apple has now admitted that its advertising could have been misleading to the Australian public.

    According to The Australian, Apple had tried to argue during the trial that some Australian networks compatible with the iPad are actually 4G, though those networks do not advertise as such. The judge in the case has not yet accepted the settlement, citing Apple’s unknown total worth and the number of Australians affected by the misleading ads. The judge wants to make sure the settlement amount is “meaningful” for Apple, and has put off his decision until he can get more information from both Apple and the ACCC, the deadline for which is next Wednesday.

    (via The Australian)

  • Facebook Must Help Identify Trolls, Says UK Court

    If you’re in the UK and are in the mood for some particularly malicious Facebook trolling, you might want to rethink your decision. That’s because there is now precedent for a court to order Facebook turn over everything they have on you. A UK high court has sided with 45-year-old Nicola Brookes and ordered Facebook to help identify her cyberbullies in one of the first cases of its kind.

    We told you Ms. Brookes’ story a few weeks ago, when she first began to pursue legal action to have Facebook identify her trollers. According to Brookes, a comment she made on the Facebook page of an X Factor contestant sparked a deluge of harassment in the form of hundreds of lewd messages.

    According to her, she was branded a pedophile and received death threats as well. The harassment became a little more serious when someone set up a fake profile in her name and used the account to send explicit materials to underage girls – some as young as nine.

    She went to court to force Facebook to give up info on those who set up the fake account.

    And now, it looks like she has won. Per court order, Facebook must now give up the names, email addresses, IP addresses and more of those associated with the bullying.

    According to the Guardian:

    It is understood Facebook has not yet received the court order, known as a Norwich Pharmacal order, but will comply when it does. The order was given backing at the high court on 30 May and must now be physically served on Facebook in the US, where the social network is based.

    In their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, Facebook says that they must notify users if they are to share your information. But they also say that “nothing in [the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities] shall prevent us from complying with the law.

    In terms of this particular case, Facebook says,

    “There is no place for harassment on Facebook, but unfortunately a small minority of malicious individuals exist online, just as they do offline. We respect our legal obligations and work with law enforcement to ensure that such people are brought to justice.”

    Apparently, anonymity only goes so far.

  • Should Sex Offenders Be Allowed On Facebook?

    I am not a father. Because of this, I don’t possess the visceral, instinctual drive to protect my children at all costs. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I’m insensitive to the challenges of protecting kids both online and offline, it simply means that safeguarding a kid’s experience in any activity that they pursue is not always my first consideration.

    Having said that, even I find myself giving a quick, visceral, instinctual response to this question: Should sex offenders be allowed on Facebook?

    “Well, of course not.”

    And I’m pretty sure that I’m nowhere near alone regarding this sentiment. I mean, let’s look at a brief history of bad people on the internet. You have your scammers, identity thieves, malware perpetuators, and online sexual predators – out there in a class of their own. Scum amongst scum, the wart on the pig’s ass when it comes to internet exploitation. Ever since the first guy sat down in the first chat room and typed “a/s/l,” the interwebs have been a place for those who were inclined to attempt to prey on the young and vulnerable. Of course, that’s only one side of the internet, a dark side – but it’s there.

    Do sex offenders have a constitutional claim to use social media? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    That’s why you would be hard-pressed to find someone to immediately jump to the defense of sex offenders when it comes to their social media aspirations. People convicted of sex crimes + a giant network of hundreds of millions of teens as young as 13 (officially) = obvious disaster. Any parent or even non-parent can see how the anonymity and broad reach of social networking form a dangerous playground for kids. And that’s before you populate it with convicted sex offenders.

    And most people do agree with this position – at least legislatively. Many states have laws on the books that put an outright ban on registered sex offenders using social networks. Sometimes these laws extend to things like instant messaging services and the like. The laws vary in their scope and severity, for instance Illinois law says that sex offenders must “refrain from accessing or using and social networking website while on probation, parole, or mandatory supervised release.”

    In the state of New York, registered sex offenders must report all of their internet accounts – that includes email, instant messaging, and social networking accounts. That info can then be handed over to the services, who may boot the offenders at their own discretion. NY state law also puts an outright ban on social networking for sex offenders convicted of a crime against a minor or one involving the internet.

    The point is, laws are nuanced. But in the United States, it’s just plain difficult to Facebook if you’re on the sex offender registry. For years, state attorneys general have been pushing the issue, which has led to the purging of sex offenders from networks likes Facebook and MySpace. Just recently, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced Operation: Game Over. That punnily-named initiative targeted another form of online social networking – game networks. In all, he announced that some high-profile companies likes Microsoft, Apple, E.A., and Disney had expunged over 3,500 registered sex offenders from platforms like Xbox LIVE and the PlayStation Network.

    The thought behind this operation is the same as the thought behind any operation to remove sex offenders from popular online networks. As the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s John Walsh put it, “we know that sex offenders target and lure children and how they look at the online community as their private, perverted hunting ground.” It’s hard to argue that the internet and social networking in particular makes predation easier than ever.

    And with an estimated 745,000 registered sex offenders nationwide, it seems like an open and shut case, right? For the safety of the children, we should do all we can to prevent sex offenders from Facebooking.

    For many (most, I would venture), that closes it. But it’s not that simple for some sex offenders and civil right organizations. According to the AP, there’s a wave of challenges to state laws banning sex offenders’ use of social media, and the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to spearhead many of them.

    One of these laws being challenged by the ACLU comes from Indiana. Their code states that “a person described in subsection who knowingly or intentionally uses a social networking web site; or an instant messaging or chat room program that the offender knows allows a person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to access or use the web site or program commits a sex offender Internet offense, a Class A misdemeanor.”

    “To broadly prohibit such a large group of persons from ever using these modern forms of communication is just something the First Amendment cannot tolerate,” said Ken Falk, legal director of Indiana’s ACLU chapter.

    To civil liberties activists, it’s a free speech issue. No longer are Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks simply extras in a world dominated by more established forms of communication. Social networking has become such an integral part of our lives as a society, that to deny a subset of the population access to this ubiquitous method of communication is unconstitutional – a violation of the first amendment. They argue that even registered sex offenders have the right to participate in our collective online discussion.

    Indiana isn’t the only state where these laws are under fire. And the ACLU might have some precedent in their pockets. Back in February, a Louisiana judge ruled that a state law banning sex offenders from participating in social networking was “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

    He wrote in his opinion:

    Although the act is intended to promote the legitimate and compelling state interest of protecting minors from internet predators, the near total ban on internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world. The sweeping restrictions on the use of the internet for purposes completely unrelated to the activities sought to be banned by the Act impose severe and unwarranted restraints on constitutionally protected speech. More focused restriction that are narrowly tailored to address the specific conduct sought to be proscribed should be pursued.

    As you can see, he leaves the door open for new legislation, albeit narrower legislation. The act that Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law in 2011 broadly banned “the using or accessing of social networking websites, chat rooms, and peer-to-peer networks by a person who is required to register as a sex offender [for violating statues involving minors].”

    The judge’s decision invokes the same argument being championed by the ACLU – that these laws infringe on activities that have become so vital in today’s society. And when you think about it, the future may hold an even greater role for social media.

    The free speech argument is strong enough to warrant consideration. Even so, it will be hard to sway public opinion on a topic that in so sensitive to so many people – the exploitation of children. Supporters of the strict no-social media laws need only reference cases like this to show why such laws are indeed necessary:

    Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly describes the almost unbelievable web of deceit constructed by one online predator named William Ainsworth earlier this year:

    “What we found was an intricate web of false Facebook identities that were used to establish online relationships with vulnerable girls, who were then manipulated into sending nude photos to Ainsworth – believing he was a young surfer living in Florida – or physically meeting Ainsworth for sex – under the impression that those sexual encounters would help raise money so the girls could run away to Florida to be with their new online friend.”

    Here’s how I broke down the sickeningly detailed scam in an earlier article about the case:

    First, he created two fake Facebook profiles – Bill Cano and Anthony “Riip” Navari. He built up both profiles by creating a network of friends with people in the greater Pittsburgh area. Both of his characters were young surfers who had dropped out of high school and ran away to Florida. He supposedly bolstered the believability of his characters by taking images from around the internet.

    Apparently, he amassed over 600 friends between the two fake profiles.

    He then used Bill Cano to make contact with young girls. Once he had manipulated them by gaining their trust over a period of time, he would get them to send him nude and sexually explicit photos.

    But that wasn’t enough. Here’s where the story takes an even darker turn.

    Once Ainsworth had established a community of girls that cared about Bill Cano, he killed him off. Then comes “Rip” Navari, who swooped in posing to be Bill’s step-brother or best friend. He told the girls that Bill had been attacked and killed. It’s pretty easy to see how young girls could get wrapped up in all of this.

    Ainsworth then put a third fake character into play, named Glenn Keefer. Keefer’s profile said that he was a “Sugardaddy looking for Sugarbabies,” living in the Pittsburgh area. Ainsworth used Rip to introduce the girls to Keefer. The story was that if they stripped or performed sex acts with Keefer, then he would give money to Rip so that Rip could help the girls fly down to Florida to be with him.

    All in all, Ainsworth’s web tangled up 7 victims from the ages of 13-15. Five of those girls ended up sending nude photos and he actually met with two of them (posing as Keefer) for the purposes of sex.

    It’s a story like that that makes people feel strongly about this issue. It’s also the reason why it’s so difficult to write laws that strike a balance between safety and personal liberty.

    Even if the sex offenders and the civil liberties groups find success in challenging the state laws, they still could run into another roadblock. That’s because Facebook specifically prohibits convicted sex offenders from enjoying membership on their site.

    Facebook unequivocally states:

    Convicted sex offenders are prohibited from using Facebook. Once we are able to verify a user’s status as a sex offender, we immediately disable their account and remove their account and all information associated with it.

    Facebook users are tasked with helping to rid the network of the sex offenders. They can provide Facebook with links to the violating user’s sex offender registry listing, a news article about the crime, or even a court document. Any of those articles of proof can get a registered offender banned.

    From the side of protecting kids, it’s a no-brainer. Inarguably, social media sites like Facebook can be used as that “playground for online predators.” We’ve seen it happen on numerous occasions. In terms of safety, there are really no arguments against banning registered sex offenders from these sites.

    On the side of free speech and constitutionality, it gets a bit trickier for some. Not everyone can agree that there are first amendment implications with this issue, and even the ones that do will find it hard to get past the simple fact that kids are much safer online without former (and current) sexual predators lurking around their Timelines.

    What do you think? Is there a first amendment contradiction within these no-social media laws? Is it fair to ban an entire group from participating in something that’s such an integral part to modern life? Even if it’s unfair, should it matter? Does committing a sex crime against a child make you forfeit the fairness argument? Let us know what you think in the comments.

  • UK Woman Wants Facebook To Identify Her Trollers

    It’s not an unfamiliar story – people on the internet can be jackasses. Why are people mean? Well, without delving into anything that would require a psych evaluation, one thing that people always point to is anonymity. On the interwebs, you’re hidden by a big wall of protection – you’re an unknown. That means that you can do and say anything you want (within reason), as long as you maintain an online identity separate from your real-life identity. Recent cases have challenged this truism, however, as “internet bullying” has become a job for law enforcement in some areas.

    Now, one woman wants to force the hand of one of the internet’s biggest facilitators of communication (both good and bad), Facebook. Nicola Brookes wants to force Facebook to reveal the identities of those who trolled her on the social network, so that she can pursue legal action against them.

    According to the Telegraph, it all started when Brookes made a comment on the Facebook page of an X Factor contestant. Apparently, she went against the deluge of negativity and then became a target herself.

    According to Brookes, she received hundreds of lewd messages and threats within a few hours. “Facebook users began deliberately targeting me, writing under my comment that I was a pedophile and hoping that I would die,” Ms Brookes told the Telegraph.

    As the messages got more personal, Ms. Brookes found that someone had also set up a fake account in her name, complete with photos and all. That account was reportedly used to send explicit materials to young girls on Facebook – some as young as nine.

    Now, Brookes wants Facebook to reveal who set up that fake account. If that happens, lawyers want to use that information to begin prosecution.

    For their part, Facebook says that they “respond aggressively to reports of potential abuse.” They are clear about this kind of stuff in their Rights and Responsibilities statement.

    Section 4.1 clearly states:

    You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

    Other clauses say that users “will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user,” and “will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.”

    But for Facebook, removing the fake accounts is one thing, but turning over the identities of the perpetrators is a different animal altogether. While Facebook states that they will only share your information after they have received your permission or given you notice (in a change of privacy policy), they also state that nothing in the terms of service prevents them from complying with the law.

  • Google Sued Over “Jewish” Autocomplete Suggestions

    If you’ve spent any time on humor sites, forums, or user-submitted content aggregators like reddit, you have probably seen Google’s autocomplete search feature used as a tool for discovering the sometimes fascinating, sometimes downright odd, and oftentimes frightening collective queries of the internet population. If you want to see this in action, just go to Google and type “Why can’t I” or “Should you” or “British people are.” You’ll see that people are actively searching some pretty weird stuff.

    While autocomplete can produce this decidedly comedic result, it’s not a laughing matter for some who have accused the feature of having untold reputation-ruining powers. Today, Google is being sued over their autocomplete feature, and it’s definitely not the first time the company has faced these allegations.

    The newest lawsuit comes from France, where anti-discrimination group SOS Racisme has accused Google of the “creation of what is probably the greatest Jewish history file” ever.

    French site La Cote reports (Google translation):

    Numerous users of the first search engine from France and world are confronted daily with the association unsolicited and almost systematically the term ‘Jew’ with the names of those most prominent in the world of politics, media or business, “deplore these organizations.

    The claim is that Google’s autocomplete feature is mislabeling celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile people by suggesting “Jew” or “Jewish” next to their names in possible search queries. These celebs include News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch and actor Jon Hamm. As you can see above, a search for “rupert m…” suggests “Rupert Murdoch jewish” as its fourth option.

    As you’re most likely well aware, Google isn’t sitting back there hand-picking these suggestions. They are the result of an algorithm that takes into account popular searches from other users as well as your own previous Google activity (if you’re logged in).

    Here’s how Google describes its autocomplete feature:

    As you type, Google’s algorithm predicts and displays search queries based on other users’ search activities and the contents of web pages indexed by Google. If you’re signed in to your Google Account and have Web History enabled, you might also see search queries from relevant searches that you’ve done in the past. In addition, Google+ profiles can sometimes appear in autocomplete when you search for a person’s name. Apart from the Google+ profiles that may appear, all of the predicted queries that are shown in the drop-down list have been typed previously by Google users or appear on the web.

    For certain queries, Google will show separate predictions for just the last few words. Below the word that you’re typing in the search box, you’ll see a smaller drop-down list containing predictions based only on the last words of your query. While each prediction shown in the drop-down list has been typed before by Google users or appears on the web, the combination of your primary text along with the completion may be unique.

    Predicted queries are algorithmically determined based on a number of purely algorithmic factors (including popularity of search terms) without human intervention. The autocomplete data is updated frequently to offer fresh and rising search queries.

    That lack of manual intervention has gotten Google in trouble in the past. Back in December of 2011, Google was ordered to pay a $65,000 fine because of an autocomplete suggestion directed toward a French insurance company called Lyonnaise de Garantie. One suggestions inserted the word “esroc,” which means “crook.” In the ruling, it was emphasized that they court felt Google should exercise some human control over these autocomplete suggestions.

    Google also found themselves in trouble in Japan earlier this year after autocomplete associated a man with crimes he apparently did not commit.

    It’s important to note that Google does manually exclude some autocomplete suggestions in very limited circumstances – those having to do with “pornography, violence, hate speech, and copyright infringement.”

    Having “Jew” or “jewish” pop up as a suggestion with some people’s names is simply a reflection of that term’s popularity on the internet. It’s no different that the second suggestion that pops up when you search “Obama is,” but a tad different from the fourth result:

    The point is, people are going to search for untrue things. Jon Hamm may not be Jewish, but apparently enough people have heard that he is and are checking it out. I’m also aware that labeling certain high-profile public figures as “Jews” is a negative in the eyes of many. But “Jew” or “Jewish” doesn’t fall into one of those categories that would demand an intervention from Google. It’s not hate speech to say someone is Jewish, even if the people searching for it might have hate on their minds.

    But as we’ve seen, Google is vulnerable to this sort of lawsuit. The world “esroc” doesn’t qualify as pornographic, violent, hate speech, or promoting copyright infringement – it simply harms a reputation. Nevertheless, Google had to pay a fine and remove it.

    Should Google really have to take action on autocomplete results? Tell us what you think in the comments.

    [Via The Hollywood Reporter]

  • New Lawsuit Targets More Hurt Locker Downloaders

    If you downloaded the Academy-Award-winning film The Hurt Locker in the past two years, things are really turning out to be a hassle for you.

    That’s because Voltage Pictures, makers of the film, keep going after BitTorrent users.

    According to court documents obtained by TorrentFreak, Voltage Pictures is back and ready to sue 2.514 more people, adding to their already-record-setting numbers when it comes to file-sharing lawsuits. This complaint was filed in Florida, and targets customers of a single ISP, Charter Communications.

    This looks like the same script we’ve seen in the past. Voltage files a complaint with thousands of John Doe IP addresses, and eventually hopes that the ISP will turn over their real identities. “Plaintiff believes that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification fo each Defendant’s true name and permit Plaintiff to amend this complaint to state the same.” So there you go. As Ernesto at TorrentFreak points out, it’s possible that Voltage Pictures are going after one single ISP because they won’t put up a fight when it comes to giving up subscriber info.

    About two years ago, Voltage Pictures begun the suing bonanza, targeting 5,000 alleged copyright infringers who downloaded The Hurt Locker. Last May they expanded the scope of that suit to include 24,583 defendants. At the time, it broke the previous record for largest file-sharing suit ever – held by the 23,000-person lawsuit that targeted downloaders of the action flick The Expendables.

    The M.O. for the Plaintiffs here is first obtaining the user records from the ISP, then offering each a settlement in the $3,000 range. Many people will simply pay the money to avoid any further complications. This is how the studios say they are recouping their piracy-related losses.

    You can check out the full complaint below:

    New Hl Complaint

    And here’s the list of defendants, just in case you’re a Charter Communications customer and want to check:

    Hl Ip Addresses

  • Twitter Spam Lawsuit Detailed in Court Filings

    Last week I reported on the lawsuit Twitter has filed against the companies responsible for making “Twitter marketing” software (i.e. spam software). It claimed in a blog post that taking down those companies would make it harder for spammers who use their software and act as a deterrent for other spammers. Now, the official documents have come to light and it provides quite a window into the spam Twitter has to deal with.

    The lawsuit lists several defendants, some spammers and some the makers of spam software. The defendants are Skootle Corporation, JL4 Web Solutions, “Justin Clark doing business at TweetBuddy.com”, James Kester, Jayson Yanuaria, James Lucero, and Garland E. Harris. Kester is identified as the principal officer of Skootle and Yanuaria the principal officer of JL4.

    For the spammers in this list of defendants, Lucero and Harris, the argument is simple: they violated Twitter’s terms of service, which specifically ban user from certain activities defined as “Spam and Abuse.”

    Suing the makers of the spam software is a little more tricky. The lawsuit claims that until recently, the TweetAttacks website advertised by saying “Replies will appear very natural. They will be posted via the WEB NOT THE API and it will look like being posted by a REAL HUMAN” [sic]. Since they were not directly violating Twitter’s terms of service, Twitter instead argues that the automated scripts they developed accessed Twitter’s website instead of its API, which Twitter does not allow. The lawsuit reads:

    By connecting the TweetAttacks (TweetAdder and Tweetbuddy also get identical proclamations) software to Twitter’s websites and services through unauthorized means rather than through Twitter’s official API, TweetBuddy violates the Twitter TOS and induces violations thereof by the users of its software.

    Twitter wants damages, including punitive damages, from each of the defendants, in an amount not less than $700,000. In addition, they want a court order banning the defendants from spamming or marketing their spam software. The $700,000 amount is arrived at from estimates of what each defendant cost Twitter. Specifically, the want $100,000 from Lucero, $75,000 from Harris, $75,000 from TweetAdder, $300,000 from TweetBuddy, and $150,000 from TweetAttacts.

    The text of the suit can be seen here courtesy of Marketing Land.

  • Twitter Sues Spam Tool Creators in Federal Court

    Twitter has announced it filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco against companies who provide the tools Twitter spammers use. In a post on the Twitter blog, Twitter said it was filing the suit to prevent spammers from accessing their tools and, they hope, to deter other spammers from making similar software. From the blog post:

    This morning, we filed suit in federal court in San Francisco against five of the most aggressive tool providers and spammers. With this suit, we’re going straight to the source. By shutting down tool providers, we will prevent other spammers from having these services at their disposal. Further, we hope the suit acts as a deterrent to other spammers, demonstrating the strength of our commitment to keep them off Twitter.

    Twitter has only said it filed suit against “five of the most aggressive tool providers and spammers.” According to The Telegraph, the defendants in the lawsuit are TweetAttacks, TweetAdder, TweetBuddy, James Lucero of justinlover.info, and Garland E. Harris of troption.com. These services bill themselves as “Twitter marketing software.”

    Twitter also used the blog post to reiterate that their engineering team is working on technical solutions to combat spam. They claim that anti-spam measures were implemented this week that allow them to “agressively suspend a new type of @ mention spam.” Also, Twitter’s link shortener analyzes links to make sure they don’t lead to malware or other “malicious content.”

    In some ways this seems to be a good step for Twitter. Fighting back against spam requires fighting on all fronts, from tools for users to individually combat it to federal lawsuits. But if Twitter believes suing these companies will get rid of the types of software they make and promote, they are mistaken. While the lawsuit drags on more of the exact same services will spring up. In order to truly get rid of the weed that is spam, Agent Orange is required. And Twitter certainly isn’t going to destroy its site with toxic goo just to cull spam.

  • Groupon Lawsuits Related To Earnings Revisions Start Being Filed

    On Friday, Groupon announced that it had revised its earnings report, which was originally released in February. This has drawn all kinds of hell to the company in the few days since.

    Lawyers almost immediately began looking for complaints from shareholders. Now, one has officially been filed. PaidContent, which shares the following legal document reports that a man from Groupon’s hometown of Chicago has filed a suit.

    Groupon Class Action Take 1

    The suit is class action, and claims to represent “all others similarly situated” – those that “purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Groupon between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012,” and “who acquired shares of Groupon commons stock pursuant or traceable to the company’s false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its November 4, 2011 initial public offering.”

    The suit allegs that Groupon issued false and misleading statements regarding tis business practices and financial results, which it says were overstated in violation of GAAP. It says Groupon’s business was not growing to the extent represented and was not nearly as resistant to competition as suggested.

    That’s just a sample. You can read the document above for the whole thing.

    Meanwhile, the SEC is getting involved. It’s been reported that a preliminary probe has begun, though a formal investigation has yet to launch.

  • Should Facebook Use Your Activity As Ads?

    In the past few months, you’ve probably seen an increase in “Sponsored Stories” when you’re browsing Facebook. If that term doesn’t ring a bell, Sponsored Stories are basically advertisements, promoted by a brand, based on your activity that you’ve already put out there for the world to see. Let’s say that you posted a status update, checking-in at Starbucks and talking about how you finally got your morning cup of coffee and it saved your day. Facebook might display that “Story” prominently on a friend’s News Feed under the heading of “sponsored.”

    The whole point of Sponsored Stories is to mix the core experience of Facebook with advertising. If the “ad” is actually just a promotion of an already written status update, or “like” of a particular page, it’s going to feel more organic to the user that sees it in their feed. After all, if your friend said that they just had the new Frankenstein Frito-Dorito-creation from Taco Bell and they loved it, that naturally serves as a better advertisement than one from Taco Bell themselves. Or at least that’s the thought.

    That crucial personal link between the likeness of someone a user knows and the advertisement is being challenged by a Vancouver woman. Debbie Douez has filed a class action lawsuit in British Columbia courts that claims Facebook was in violation of privacy laws when they used her image and name in a Sponsored Story.

    What do you think about Sponsored Stories? Do you think that there’s anything wrong with Facebook promoting actions that you’ve already taken? Let us know in the comments.

    For Douez, the problem stems from a particular Sponsored Story that Facebook promoted. Earlier this year, the lawsuit states that “Facebook authored a Sponsored Story which displayed the plaintiffs name and portrait to least one of her Friends in the following format: Debbie Douez likes Cool Entrepreneurs.” Obviously, Douez liked a page on the site and that action was eventually promoted by Facebook to her friends. Douez argues that she did not consent to Facebook’s use of her name and “portrait” (profile pic) in any type of advertising for Cool Entrepreneurs.

    Here’s the crux of the argument, straight from the filing:

    Facebook does not give notice to Members that their names or portraits are being used in connection with a Sponsored Story or that Facebook is depicting that Member as endorsing a particular good or service.

    In other words, other Members may view advertisements, including Sponsored Stories, purportedly endorsed by a Member who is unaware that his or her name or portrait is being used in connection with that advertisement.

    Facebook does not advise, inform or compensate Members when it uses their names or portraits to endorse a Sponsors goods or services or otherwise displays Members’ names or portraits in Sponsored Stories.

    Facebook does not allow Members to either limit or altogether block the appearance of their names or portraits in connection with a Sponsored Story.

    Since the introduction of Sponsored Stories, Facebook has not sought or obtained Members’ consent to use Members’ names or portraits for the purpose of advertising or promoting the sale of Sponsors’ goods or services.

    And the lawsuit goes on to complain that Facebook fails to compensate users for using their image and name to promote these particular brands, saying “Facebook did not compensate the Class members for the use of their names of portraits in Sponsored Stories advertising or promoting any goods or services notwithstanding that such use generated advertising revenues for Facebook.”

    Put all of this together, and you can sum up the complaint in this way: You didn’t tell us, you didn’t pay us, and we can’t opt out.

    The suit finally says that in doing all of this, Facebook has violated statutes in the Canadian Privacy Act, and:

    Facebook’s use of the plaintiff and Class members’ names or portraits without consent was high-handed, outrageous, wanton, reckless, callous, disgraceful, willful and entirely without care for the plaintiffs and Class members’ statutory right to control the use of their own names or portraits, and as such renders Facebook liable to pay punitive damages.

    While Facebook is absolutely transparent in terms of how Sponsored Stories work, Douez is right in saying that users don’t receive notice when one of their actions is promoted as a Sponsored Story. She’s also right in saying that users can’t opt-out of Sponsored Stories – as to say they can’t stop Facebook from promoting all of their activities on the site.

    At this point, it might help to discuss the differences between Facebook’s social ads and the Sponsored Stories.

    Both Facebook ads and Sponsored Stories have a social element. You’ve probably seen ads all over Facebook for goods and services, or for particular brands in general that show your friends’ “likes.” For instance, an ad for McDonalds might appear in the right hand column on your Facebook dashboard that reads “The McRib is back.” Under that, it might also read “Jack Smith likes McDonalds.” This is an ad that is paired with a social action after the fact.

    Facebook explains adding social elements to ads by saying “everyone wants to know what their friends like. That’s why we pair ads and friends—an easy way to find products and services you’re interested in, based on what your friends share and like.”

    Sponsored Stories, like I mentioned before, are just a little bit different. They take pages you like, apps you use, or statuses you make and promote them after the fact. It’s a story built from a story that a user’s friends can already see. For instance, I might see that my pal Jacob liked Mountain Dew earlier in the day, and then see it as a sponsored story later in the day.

    The main difference between the two, however, is the ability for users to opt-out. You can edit your privacy settings to read “pair my social action with ads for no one.” If you do this, that hypothetical ad for McDonald’s McRib won’t have the addendum that shows you like that particular brand.

    Making this privacy change won’t affect Sponsored Stories however. Users can’t opt-out of having their actions appear as Sponsored Stories, bascially because Facebook says that Sponsored Stories are nothing more than your own real stories, re-promoted. Sponsored Stories are organic, and don’t contain any additional message from the sponsor:

    We sometimes allow businesses or anyone else to sponsor stories like the ones that show up in your News Feed, subject to the audience set for that story. While these are sponsored, they are different from ads because they don’t contain a message from the person that sponsored them. Your friends will see these stories even if you have opted out of the Show my social actions in Facebook Ads setting.

    All of this is in Facebook’s fine print, but the suit claims that it’s not enough. “If you’re going to be using somebody’s name or somebody’s portrait for advertising purposes, you need to obtain their consent,” Douez’s lawyer told CBC News.

    As far as Facebook’s ability to use your intellectual property (i.e. photos), they do give a pretty succinct explanation in their terms of service:

    For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

    We’ve seen the use of Facebook photos question by miffed parties before, when some Boston high-schoolers were upset after pictures they posted to Facebook wound up as advertising on porn sites.

    Facebook is Facebook. That might sound meaningless, but what I’m trying to say is that people log on to Facebook, knowing that they are participating in a public forum. Even if you have your privacy settings cranked up to 11, and only a select few friends can see most of your activity, that still qualifies as public (just not as public as some people).

    Sponsored Stories take an action that you’ve already taken, and allows brands (or anyone else for that matter) to re-promote it on the user’s friends’ News Feed. They don’t make any new information available. If you “liked” Starbucks earlier in the day, your friends could go to your “About” page and see it there with all of your likes.

    But for brands, Facebook is providing some really high quality advertising. Making sure that a user’s friends see that he’s playing a certain game or checking-in at a certain restaurant seems like a much better strategy than a generic ad on the side of the page.

    Should Facebook require consent before using a user’s activity in a Sponsored Story? Should users be able to opt-out, in the same way they can with social ads? Do you even care if your activity is used as a sponsored story? Let us know what you think in the comments.

  • Groupon Draws SEC’s Eye, Forks Out $8.5 Million To Settle String Of Lawsuits

    Late on Friday, Groupon issued a press release revising its earnings report, which was initially released in February. As previously reported, lawyers immediately started seeking complaints against the company.

    In fact, one press release from law firm Federman & Sherwood came out yesterday afternoon, saying:

    The law firm of Federman & Sherwood, a nationwide law firm specializing in securities, derivative and merger litigation, has initiated an investigation into Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRPN) with respect to possible breaches of fiduciary duty by the company’s officers and directors, as well as violations of state law. More specifically, the company and its auditor found material weaknesses with the company’s reported revenue and earnings for the fourth quarter 2011, and therefore may have misstated earnings and revenue in its Annual Report. There is also speculation that the officers and directors of the company “rushed” the initial public offering.

    If you purchased Groupon, Inc. shares between the IPO date of November 4, 2011 and March 31, 2012, have information to assist in our investigation, or have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact our firm.

    That’s just a sampling of a greater number of such releases, according to reports.

    The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that the Securities and Exchange Commission is now involved. According to the publication, there has not been a formal investigation launched yet, but a probe is in a preliminary stage, which may or may not lead to a bigger investigation.

    The revisions included a $14.3 million reduction in Q4 revenue, which was originally reported as $506.5 million, up 194% year-over-year.Operating expenses were also increased, reducing operating income by $30 million, net income by $22.6 million and earnings per share by $0.04.

    CFO Jason Child said in the announcement, “We remain confident in the fundamentals of our business, as our performance continues to highlight the value that we provide to customers and merchants.”

    Meanwhile, Groupon has agreed to an $8.5 million settlement in a string of suits related to expiration dates on deals. This, according to Reuters, settles 17 suits in all.

  • Facebook Buys 750 IBM Patents To Stop Lawsuits

    Facebook Buys 750 IBM Patents To Stop Lawsuits

    After facing over twenty lawsuits last year, Facebook took steps to alleviate the pressure by purchasing over seven hundred patents from International Business Machines (IBM). The purchase includes various technologies used in networking and software application.

    Currently Facebook holds only around fifty patents, but has many more applications filed with the US patent office (around 500). This new acquisition dramatically improves the size of Facebook’s patent portfolio and could be useful in fending off lawsuits like the one they are fighting right now from Yahoo!.

    It looks like there’s going to be a war between Yahoo! and Facebook, and now Facebook is properly armed to engage Yahoo!. We’ll wait to see what happens. In the meantime Twitter will let us know what people are thinking about with Facebook’s new acquisition:

    @SeanDillonSmith
    Sean Smith    Oh #Facebook, you’re so clever. http://t.co/tNV1jzqi #socialmedia 7 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @ErenGokk
    Eren Gök     Facebook Bought 750 Patents From IBM [REPORT]:

    @PrakashChandra
    Prakash Chandra    In case there was any doubt that the current system isn’t working – FB Buys 750 IBM Patents To Defend Against Yahoo http://t.co/b5yPSyDT 6 minutes ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @basanneveld
    Bas Anneveld    Nice! #Facebook buys 750 #IBM patents to defend against #Yahoo http://t.co/0XDAkSwd 18 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @PineconeComp
    PineconeComputing    And the race is on…. http://t.co/RZaeFiBB 40 minutes ago via Facebook ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @MEEM_Creative
    MEEM Creative    Troll Repellant! http://t.co/pR2xGaM3 47 minutes ago via Facebook ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @rstbob
    Bob Oesterlin    Well, that’s an interesting development! RT @JesseNewhart: Facebook Buys 750 IBM Patents To Defend Against Yahoo http://t.co/GkU3fOeQ 59 minutes ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @NavSarwar
    Nav Sarwar    Facebook buys 750 patents from IBM. Likely as defensive weapons against Yahoo. Watch this space! 1 hour ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @drollness
    Michael Davis    Intellectual property is out of control, example #145,745: http://t.co/hScU0BbW – can’t wait for our dystopian future… 42 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @jenuf
    jenuf    Funny->RT @lauriemccabe: IBM yard sale! GOOG buys 1K IBM patents, now FB buys 750 IBM Patents 2 Defend Agst Yahoo http://t.co/em1GFf41 1 hour ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

  • Siri Sucks and Apple Has Deceived Us, Claims Lawsuit

    While it’s definitely true that Apple’s voice assistant Siri hasn’t always worked like a charm, one New Yorker thinks that Siri’s shortcomings are enough to warrant legal action.

    Frank M. Fazio has filed a class action complaint against Apple for violation of various California consumer protection laws as well as intentional misrepresentation concerning Siri, Apple’s breakthrough voice assistant tool that’s been one of the main selling points of the iPhone 4S.

    The main focus of Mr. Fazio’s suit is Apple’s advertising. He says that Apple used Siri to differentiate the iPhone 4S from previous iPhone models (and by doing so were able to charge more for it). But in his mind, Siri hasn’t even come close to living up to how Apple portrayed her.

    The iPhone 4S is the latest version of the iPhone and is distinguished by Defendant from its other iPhone devices, including the iPhone 4, predominantly based on the inclusion and touted benefits of a feature styled “Siri.”

    Through an extensive and comprehensive nationwide marketing campaign, Defendant has conveyed the misleading and deceptive message that the iPhone 4S’s Siri feature, a so-called voice-activated assistant, performs useful functions and otherwise works as advertised.

    But those messages about Siri’s functionality are intentionally deceitful, according to the Plaintiff:

    Defendant’s advertisements regarding the Siri feature are fundamentally and designedly false and misleading. Notwithstanding Apple’s extensive multi-million dollar advertising campaign showcasing the Siri feature, and the fact that the iPhone 4S is more expensive than the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4S’s Siri feature does not perform as advertised, rendering the iPhone 4S merely a more expensive iPhone.

    Defendant’s misrepresentations concerning the Siri feature of the iPhone 4S are misleading, false, and reasonably likely to deceive and have deceived Plaintiff and members of the putative class.

    The suit goes on to specifically name recent Apple ads for the iPhone 4S that focus on Siri. If you’ve noticed the recent slew of iPhone 4S ads, you probably already know that most all of do in fact center around Siri’s functionality. Fazio’s attorneys specifically mention this ad that you might recognize:

    Apple has said on numerous occasions that Siri is in beta and will be improved as they go. They even say this on the site page for Siri. Given, it is in small print and that’s part of what Mr. Fazio is upset about.

    What do you think? Do you think that Apple’s various Siri-oriented advertisements are misleading? Has Apple deceived customers with their marketing campaign? Or is this guy just expecting too much? Let us know in the comments.

    Apple iPhone Siri Cpt

  • Fallen Iraq War Vet’s Photo Used Unwittingly On Dating Sites

    When a photo is put on the internet, we all know how easy it is for that photo to be taken and used in a variety of ways – many ways that aren’t compatible with the original intent of the poster. The parents of one fallen U.S. soldier know this all too well.

    They have filed lawsuits against two online dating sites: PlentyofFish.com and True.com for using their son’s photo to advertise their dating services.

    Lt. Peter Burks was killed in 2007 in Iraq. The Bronze Star recipient was returning from a mission in Baghdad when a roadside bomb exploded under his vehicle. Four years later, one of Lt. Burks’ friends was apparently browsing PlentyofFish.com when he saw the Lieutenant’s photo in a pop-up ad that read “Military Man Searching fo Love.” He said the photo in the ad was taken just a few days before he was killed. According to Burks’ parents, the photo was one of their son that is featured on his memorial site.

    Click on that pop-up led you to True.com.

    “These websites are using the photo of a fallen hero simply as a means to make money and that’s just plain wrong,” says attorney Rogge Dunn of Dallas’ Clouse Dunn LLP, who represents Lt. Burks’ parents. “This has caused a great deal of pain to those who loved Peter – his family and fiancee – and has reopened old wounds.”

    This story is reminiscent of another incident involving photos being used for nefarious purposes. Earlier this month, high school girls from a Boston Vocational school learned that their Facebook photos were being used on various porn sites. In that case, it was unclear as to what prosecutors could do – the sites were outside of U.S. jurisdiction plus there’s the whole thing about Facebook photos not really belonging to the users once they post them.

    In this situation, Alan Burks says he “just wants these companies to admit what they did is wrong and to stop doing it.”

    They’ve said that any money received from the lawsuits will go to support the troops.

  • iPhone 4 Owner? Apple May Owe You $15.

    iPhone 4 Owner? Apple May Owe You $15.

    When Apple released the iPhone 4, it was the company’s most successful product launch up until that date. A lot lot of consumers, however, were frustrated to find that there were major reception problems, in a scandal which became known as Antennagate. It led to the departure of Apple’s executive in charge of iPhone hardware, though it is even cited in Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs bio as an example of when Jobs put design over functionality.

    The issue led to a big thumbs down for the device from Consumer Reports.

    The whole thing even inspired this, which Apple played at its own press event:

    Jobs said at the event, Apple hadn’t figured out its “way around the laws of physics yet.” He recommended iPhone owners install an update, and announced that Apple would give them free cases, and that those who had bought one would get a refund (if they were not from third-parties).

    Still, there were a number of lawsuits, which resulted in their consolidation into one class action suit. Now, a settlement has been reached, according to CNET, which reports that those who bought an iPhone 4 will be entitled to $15 in cash or a bumper case from Apple.

    More details will emerge at iPhone4Settlement.com in the coming weeks, the report says, though there is nothing at that URL at the moment.

  • Facebook, AG File Clickjacking Suits Against Adscend Media

    Facebook and Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna announced the filing of dual lawsuits against Adscend Media, an ad network, which has allegedly developed and encouraged the “spread of spam through misleading and deceptive tactics,” including clickjacking.

    Facebook defines clickjacking in its help center in the following manner:

    Certain malicious websites contain code that can make your browser take action without your knowledge or consent. For example. clicking on a link on one of these websites might cause the website to be posted to your Facebook profile (timeline). Never click strange links, even if they are from friends. Also be sure to notify the person sending the link if you see something suspicious.

    “We don’t ‘like’ schemes that illegally trick Facebook users into giving up personal information or paying for unwanted subscription services through spam,” McKenna says. “We applaud Facebook for devoting significant technical and legal resources to finding and stopping scams as soon as possible – and often before they even start. We’re proud to join forces in order to protect Washington consumers.”

    You see what he did there with the “like”?

    “Security is an arms race, and that’s why Facebook is committed to constantly improving our consumer safeguards while pursuing and supporting civil and criminal consequences for bad actors,” says Facebook General Counsel Ted Ullyot.

    “The natural reaction is to wonder why anyone would click on these links,” says Assistant Attorney General Paula Selis. “But, unfortunately they do, and at one point Adscend spam lined the defendants’ pockets with up to $1.2 million a month.”

    “Facebook’s security professionals have made tremendous strides against this particular form of attack and we are intent on eradicating it completely,” said Craig Clark, Lead Litigation Counsel at Facebook. “We will continue to use all tools at our disposal to ensure that scammers do not profit from misusing Facebook’s services.”

    Facebook’s suit was filed against Adscend and its owners in federal court in the Northern District of California. The AG’s suit alleging violation of the CAN-SPAM act, Washington State’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Washintgon State’s Consumer Protection Act, was filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle. Adscend is based in Delaware.

  • Apple Sues Samsung (Again) To Halt Sales In Germany

    Whew. 2012 arrived and there was a brief concern that Apple and Samsung might drop their 2011 pastime of suing each other in as many countries as possibly. Lucky for, uh, I guess people who could win lawsuits, they have not resolved to cease their legal battles this year.

    Bloomberg reports today that Apple has filed yet another lawsuit in Germany, this time seeking to ban sales of multiple Samsung devices. The design suit, which focuses on Samsung smartphones such as Galaxy S Plus and the S II, alleges that the models violate Apple’s design rights. As if the fun should stop there – and why should it – Apple filed a separate lawsuit against five Samsung tablets. The Bloomberg report continues:

    Last month, the Dusseldorf court said it is unlikely to grant an injunction against the Galaxy 10.1N and an appeals court also voiced doubts about the reach of Apple’s European Union design right that won the company the injunction against the Galaxy 10.1. The new suits aren’t filed under emergency proceedings and allow Apple a new procedure against both models.

    The end of last year was witness to an international back-and-forth court room dispute between Samsung and Apple that played out in courts in the United States, Germany and Australia. No word yet on where they plan to take their Patent Lawsuit World Tour next.

    To be fair, though, not all of this design war is futile act of hair-splitting. At the beginning of this year, you may recall the debut of the Samsung Ace, which was a might familiar looking if you’re an Apple fanboy.

  • Lawyers Allege Possible Breaches of Fiduciary Duty By Netflix

    Legal claims against the officers and Board of Directors of Netflix, by Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor, LLP.

    The investigation is regarding claims related to potential securities violations between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 2011 (the “Class Period”). Powers Taylor says in a press release:

    In a recently filed federal class action complaint, Netflix and certain of its officers and directors were charged with violating provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew but concealed the following facts from the investing public during the Class Period: (a) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the company for 2011.

    “Because of the severity of the accusations lodged against certain of Netflix’s officers and directors, we are concerned about the possible damage to the company and its shareholders, and the firms have commenced an investigation to uncover possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state law by the officers and directors,” said Briscoe.

    Powers Taylor is recommending “affected” investors contact them to join the action at no cost.