David Klein

California Data Broker Registration Requirements

January 16th, 2020

In September 2019, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1202 (“A.B. 1202”), amending the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). The amendment requires qualified businesses to register as data brokers with the California Attorney General on or before January 31, 2020. A.B. 1202 defines “Data Broker” as “a business that knowingly collects and sells to third parties the personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship.” (emphasis supplied). A.B. 1202 carves out exemptions from the data broker registration requirement for most entities subject to regulation under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, respectively.

Who is a Data Broker and what are the data broker registration requirements?

[Read More]

Cruise Company Defendants Settle FTC-Alleged TSR Violations

January 14th, 2020

A call center and three (3) individuals associated with a telemarketing effort on behalf of Grand Bahama Cruise Line LLC (“GBCL”) recently settled alleged violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The FTC intends to litigate this matter against the remaining seven (7) defendants in federal court, including GBCL. The FTC’s complaint alleges that GBCL and the other defendants committed TSR violations by placing millions of telemarketing calls offering free cruises to telephone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry (“DNC Registry”).

What are the Alleged TSR Violations?

[Read More]

CCPA Law: The Private Right of Action

January 14th, 2020

As readers of this blog know, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) recently went into effect on January 1, 2020. While the California Attorney General will not bring enforcement actions prior to July 1, 2020, the CCPA’s private right of action is now in full effect. This private right of action provides California consumers with a powerful tool to seek redress if their personal information is accessed as a result of a data breach. Of course, this also means that companies that do business in California may face massive civil liability if their systems are the subject of a breach.

Who can sue under the CCPA Law, and when?

[Read More]

TCPA Law Update: Marijuana Delivery Venture Seeks Arbitration of TCPA Class Action Suit

January 10, 2020

A California-based marijuana delivery company, Eaze Technologies, Inc. formerly known as Eaze Solutions, Inc. (“Eaze”), is seeking to have Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) violation claims against it sent from federal district court to arbitration. If Eaze obtains a ruling in its favor, it would follow a nationwide trend in TCPA law involving courts enforcing arbitration agreements contained in website and mobile application terms and conditions.

How does Eaze’s motion to compel arbitration compare with recent TCPA law trends?

[Read More]

No Pimping: Trademark Law Protects the Goodyear Blimp

January 7th, 2020

On January 2, 2020, the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”) and the Illinois-based punk rock band, The Pimps, a/k/a The Good Year Pimps (“The Pimps”), entered into a settlement agreement to resolve allegations that The Pimps: (1) had breached a previous settlement agreement entered into between the parties; (2) were infringing on Goodyear’s trademark rights; and (3) had diluted and tarnished the famous GOODYEAR name and mark, the Goodyear winged foot logo and the Goodyear Blimp logo, respectively. This is not the first time that Goodyear has had to use trademark law to prevent The Pimps from using its marks. In 2002, a cease and desist letter was sent to stop The Pimps from using “Goodyear” as part of their band name. Then, in 2007, the parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement after it was learned that The Pimps were continuing to use Goodyear’s trademarks in connection with promoting their performances and in merchandise sales. This settlement agreement was adhered to until 2018, when it was brought to Goodyear’s attention that The Pimps were again using its famous trademarks during performances and to sell merchandise.

How does trademark law prevent a band from using a similar name to that of a tire company?

[Read More]

Right of Publicity Punch: Bruce Lee Enterprises Sues Kungfu Catering

December 30th, 2019

Over the years, the estate of Bruce Lee, organized under the corporate name of Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC (“BLE”), has endeavored to protect the Bruce Lee brand by filing various lawsuits throughout the world. BLE’s latest lawsuit seeks $30 million from the Chinese-based restaurant chain, Kungfu Catering Management (“KCM”), for its alleged violation of Bruce Lee’s right of publicity. KCM has questioned the timing of the lawsuit given that it has been using Bruce Lee’s image in its marketing for over 15 years. Because the right of publicity is relatively new in China and there is not a long history of case law, it will be interesting to see how this case is ultimately resolved.

What does the right of publicity protect?

[Read More]

FCC Clarifies TCPA Fax Exemption

December 27th, 2019

In an important decision concerning the Junk Fax portions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) recently issued a declaratory ruling clarifying the scope of the TCPA fax exemption. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC (“Amerifactors”) requesting clarification from the FCC as to whether certain fax services can be fairly classified as fax machines within the meaning of the TCPA.

Like many other companies operating in the fax-based marketing space, Amerifactors utilizes online fax services to transmit its marketing communications. Such online fax services operate through use of “‘a cloud-based service consisting of a fax server or similar device that is used to send or receive documents, images and/or electronic files in digital format over telecommunications facilities’ that allows users to ‘access faxes the same way that they do email by logging into a server over the Internet or by receiving a pdf attachment [as] an email.’”

How did the FCC clarify the TCPA fax exemption?

[Read More]

University of Phoenix Settles FTC Deceptive Advertising Law Allegations

December 12th, 2019

On December 10, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a settlement with the University of Phoenix and its parent company, Apollo Education Group (“AEG”), for $191 million dollars. This $191 million dollar settlement is the “largest settlement the FTC has ever obtained against a for-profit school.” This settlement is the culmination of a multi-year investigation undertaken by the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection beginning in 2015.

How did The University of Phoenix Allegedly Violate Advertising Law?

[Read More]