Blog

California to Require Mobile App Developers to Post Privacy Policies

December 18, 2012 by David Klein

According to the Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris, developers and distributors of mobile applications (Apps) must prominently post and comply with a privacy policy – just like websites and other commercial online venues. Whereas California’s Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) expressly requires operators of websites to post privacy policies where those websites collect any personal information from California residents, Attorney General Harris has stated that OPPA applies to mobile App developers as well.

Given this development, App developers should immediately post legally compliant privacy policies and make them prominently available within their Apps, or they could find themselves facing regulatory action from the State of California.

Mobile App attorneys, App developer lawyers and those involved in the mobile App space should pay close attention.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or need a mobile App privacy policy drafted for your business, please contact us at your convenience.

Attorney Advertising

California to Require Mobile App Developers to Post Privacy Policies

December 18, 2012 by David Klein

Mobile App attorneys, App developer lawyers and those involved in the mobile App space should pay close attention.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or need a mobile App privacy policy drafted for your business, please contact us at your convenience.

Attorney Advertising

Federal Online Gaming Bill to Remain in Limbo until Next Year

December 18, 2012 by David Klein

Confirming what readers of this blog already suspected, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has acknowledged that his federal gaming bill lacks the support, and momentum, necessary to seek passage in this session of Congress. As such, the effort will have to wait until next year to be taken up anew.

“I am disappointed,” Reid said, adding he and Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., “remain committed to this issue and it will be a priority for us in the new Congress.”

This process will be worth keeping an eye on next year for gambling attorneys and those interested in Internet poker law in general.

Attorney Advertising

Federal Online Gaming Bill on the Back-Burner?

December 13, 2012 by David Klein

The most prominent federal online gaming bill, as drafted by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), is expected to languish in the Senate until 2013 due to the ongoing fiscal cliff battles.

The distractions in the Senate do not spell doom for the bill, necessarily, but it does mean that proponents of legalized online poker will have to wait a little longer to see if this bill has a chance of becoming federal law.

As usual, this process will be worth keeping an eye on for gambling attorneys and those interested in Internet poker law in general.

Attorney Advertising

Obama’s Re-Election a Net Positive for Legalized Online Poker Advocates

December 13, 2012 by David Klein

The re-election of Barack Obama would appear to be a net positive for those that advocate in favor of legalized online poker. While the 2012 Democratic Party Platform largely ignored the topic of Internet gaming, the 2012 Republican Party Platform explicitly called for the prohibition of any form of legalized Internet gaming (and overturning the recent Department of Justice ruling on the Wire Act), and Romney embraced that position.

It remains the case that the Democratic Party has taken a friendlier posture toward legalized Internet gaming, but it will be interesting to see how a second Obama term might affect the legislative process going forward. Some are holding out hope that we may see a federal online poker law passed during the lame duck session of Congress (either as a stand alone bill, or an add-on), before the close of 2012. Stay tuned. This ongoing process will be of utmost importance to gaming attorneys and those interested in Internet poker law in general.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or pursuing a venture in this area, please feel free to contact us.

Attorney Advertising

Pennsylvania Ruling at Odds with North Carolina Ruling Regarding Internet Sweepstakes Cafes

December 13, 2012 by David Klein

In March of 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned a 2010 law that made certain online casino-style games – as featured in Internet sweepstakes cafes – illegal on the basis that the 2010 law was a violation of free speech, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In a recent ruling involving Telesweeps of Butler Valley Inc., a Pennsylvania District Court ruled that this type of gaming activity is not protected speech under the First Amendment.

These sweepstakes cafes usually feature rows of computer terminals that allow users to participate in several casino-style games in quick succession with the opportunity to win prizes. In exchange, users must pay the café proprietors for Internet access or prepaid phone cards. The payment element is what renders these sweepstakes cafes, or parlors, illegal in most states.

The Pennsylvania court concluded that if slot machines and other table games, generally speaking, are not protected speech, then simulated versions made available in Internet sweepstakes cafes are not either. It remains to be seen how the Pennsylvania ruling will affect the North Carolina deliberations (if at all, because they are separate jurisdictions), as well as similar legal contests currently underway in several states across the country. Gambling attorneys, sweepstakes attorneys, promotions attorneys and those interested in these fields should pay close attention.

As always, if you are interested in learning more about this topic or exploring your options in connection with these types of online sweepstakes offerings, please feel free to contact us.

Attorney Advertising

Federal Online Gaming Bill May Be Unconstitutional

December 13, 2012 by David Klein

Paul Clement, the former U.S. Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, has raised a few significant issues regarding the Constitutionality of the first federal online gaming bill, as drafted by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Under the current bill, there is a requirement that those online entities that had been providing online gaming services to US citizens, and processing their bets, prior to the bill becoming law serve out a probationary period of 540 days before they could receive a license.

Clement argues that this requirement renders the bill unconstitutional because it amounts to a bill of attainder and violates the due process rights of the entities put on probation. A “bill of attainder” is an act of a legislature that declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishes them without privilege of a judicial trial.

Clement also argues that the broad claim of authority made by the federal government in the bill would likely violate various states’ rights.

It should be noted that the bill in question is still in draft form, and will likely be amended regardless of the concerns raised by Clement. Given the stakes, the eventual outcome of the amendment process, and the ability to resolve the Constitutional questions at hand, will be of the utmost importance for gaming attorneys and those interested in Internet poker law in general.

Attorney Advertising

Vermont Attorney General Alleges Internet Marketing Companies Placed Unauthorized Charges on Vermont Consumers’ Telephone Bills

December 13, 2012 by David Klein

The Vermont Attorney General (“Vermont AG”) has recently renewed its investigation into Internet marketing companies that place charges on consumers’ landline telephone bills for enhanced services. Enhanced services include premium email and voicemail services that are billed through local exchange carriers (called “LECs,” more commonly referred to as telephone companies, such as AT&T and Verizon). Such services are charged on a monthly basis to telephone bills, rather than credit cards, in a process known as LEC billing.

Each Vermont investigation typically begins with the issuance of a Civil Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum pursuant to 9 V.S.A. § 2460. The Vermont AG usually seeks detailed information and documents from each company on the grounds that such company may have placed unauthorized charges on the telephone bills of Vermont residents. The subpoenas cite potential violations of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2453(a) and 9 V.S.A. § 2466.

The Vermont AG has initiated litigation to enforce the provisions of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act. The Vermont AG typically seeks repayment of charges toVermontconsumers that were not previously refunded, along with penalties and fees.

These subpoenas should not be ignored. Any company that receives such a subpoena should retain competent legal counsel to respond and object on its behalf.

In the past, we have successfully defended actions brought by the Vermont AG against our clients and have entered into multiple favorable settlements on their behalf, and expect to continue doing so in the future.

Attorney Advertising