David Klein

Olympic Advertising Rules Scaled Back Prior to 2020 Games

October 28, 2019

On October 8, 2019, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”) issued a new set of Olympic advertising guidelines in advance of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. The new guidelines effectively relax the prior restrictions placed on athletes and advertisers by the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”). Specifically, Rule 40.3 of the IOC’s by-laws previously prevented athletes and their respective sponsors from publicly acknowledging, thanking, and congratulating each other during the Olympic games. The new Rule 40.3 makes such communications possible, with constraints set forth by the IOC. As explained by the USOPC, the recent change was undertaken to benefit athletes “both as they seek to secure personal sponsorship and maintain relationships with the personal sponsors who support them as they train and compete.”

What does this change in Olympic advertising policy mean for Olympic athletes and sponsors?

[Read More]

CCPA Service Provider Requirements Clarified by California AG

October 24, 2019

Readers of this blog know that we have been analyzing both the draft California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) regulations and the California Attorney General’s associated effort to clarify and modify the CCPA before it takes effect on January 1, 2020. Today, we would like to address Section 999.314 of the proposed regulations, a provision intended to: 1) clarify the breadth of the CCPA service provider exception; and 2) address how service providers should handle CCPA-related consumer requests.

Who is a CCPA service provider and how should service providers handle consumer requests?

[Read More]

Supplement Marketing Firm Settles FTC Lawsuit

October 21, 2019

On October 15, 2019, NatureCity, LLC, a Florida-based marketer and seller of aloe vera-based supplements, entered into a stipulated order with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) settling alleged violations of the FTC Act. Under the terms of the order, NatureCity, its CEO, and Senior VP (collectively, “Defendants”) agreed to pay a $537,500 settlement fee and enter into an $18.7 million judgment, which will be partially suspended after the settlement fee is paid. In addition, NatureCity is barred from including false and unsupported health claims in all future supplement marketing materials.

What did the FTC allege?

[Read More]

Draft CCPA Regulations Contain Important NEW Record-Keeping and Disclosure Requirements

October 18, 2019

Recently, we blogged concerning the California State Attorney General’s release of draft California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) regulations and the associated request for public comment. In that blog, we highlighted that new obligations had been added that were not included in the CCPA itself. Today, we discuss one such new provision – Section 999.317(g) of the proposed CCPA regulations, which creates new record-keeping and disclosure obligations for every business that “alone or in combination, annually buys, receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, the personal information of 4,000,000 or more consumers.”

What are the new disclosure and record-keeping requirements contained in Section 999.317(g)?

[Read More]

AG Releases Proposed CCPA Regulations

October 16, 2019

When the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) was enacted in June 2018, it required the California State Attorney General to adopt regulations on or before July 1, 2020. On October 11, 2019, the widely anticipated draft CCPA regulations were released to the public. The intention of the proposed CCPA regulations is to provide clarity and specificity for purposes of guiding consumers and businesses through the CCPA implementation process.

What will the proposed CCPA regulations cover?

[Read More]

Supreme Court Presented with TCPA Fax Issue

October 11, 2019

The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS” or the “Court”) recently began its new term and immediately issued an order involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Fast on the heels of a recent decision at the end of the last term in which the Court was presented with a dispute over the TCPA’s application to certain classes of unsolicited faxes, SCOTUS opining on the law once more is a matter of interest to all industry observers. Unfortunately, however, the Court again failed to provide clear guidance for future TCPA fax case proceedings in lower courts of law.

How did SCOTUS resolve the TCPA fax issue?

[Read More]

Mobile App Sweepstakes and the Law

October 10, 2019

The world’s population is increasingly reliant on smart phones and other similar mobile devices. Businesses have been adjusting to this new reality by pursuing consumer outreach through mobile applications (or “apps”) that can be downloaded and accessed via smart phones. Regardless of the medium or technology involved, one particularly potent means of attracting and interacting with consumers involves the use of sweepstakes and other promotional contests. Unsurprisingly, given the emerging trends in smart phone usage and the concurrent proliferation of mobile apps, there has been a wave of mobile apps designed to provide business owners with a platform to host their mobile app sweepstakes.

While mobile app promotions may provide business owners with an ideal combination of technology and marketing reach, there is a complex system of laws, rules and regulations that apply to each separately, as well as unique legal issues that arise when they are used together. One such issue centers around whether sweepstakes sponsors need to offer consumers a free, alternative means of entry (often referred to as an “AMOE”) in addition to the entry process made available via the mobile app itself.

Do You Need to Offer Consumers an AMOE with Your Mobile App Sweepstakes?

[Read More]

Domino Effect: Will SCOTUS Refusal to Hear ADA Website Case Yield Flood of Litigation?

October 9, 2019

On October 7, 2019, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter of Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Robles. This case involves an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim in which Mr. Guillermo Robles, a blind man, filed a lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza LLC (“Domino’s”) because its website and mobile application (“app”) was inaccessible to him via his screen-reader software. The ADA website accessibility case is now expected to proceed to trial.

What is the Significance of the Supreme Court’s Denial for Other ADA Website Accessibility Cases?

[Read More]