Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

[admin]

Google Runs Into Trouble Oversees, by John W. Dozier

February 05, 2010

It's been interesting watching the politics of the online world lately at Traverse Internet Law. Google has been struggling with the Chinese government's information policies and threatening to pull out of China altogether. Google's claim, in summary, is that China does not adequately embrace the concepts of free speech. Yes, Google argues, China must change its attitude and approach about suppressing dissent and repressing criticism.

Is Google's problem really one of free speech? Or is the problem that Google, and other US bred online businesses, really don't like to follow the laws of other countries?

Do you remember the French legal actions against eBay for allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia? Do you know about the ongoing trial of Google executives charged with criminal offenses in Italy over a video on Youtube?

Recently, Italy's largest media group sued Google for copyright infringement and wants 500 million euros in damages. The case is winding its way through the courts. In the US, Google would be shielded by laws in place for User Generated Content (the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Those laws don't extend to Italy. And apparently to make sure Google is on the hook, new regulations proposed in the Italian parliament would create publisher liability for all user generated content, placing these sites on an even footing with television stations in terms of responsibility for the content. And that would make Google have to leave Italy for good.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. There is merit in that belief. And Google's problem is not just about the fundamental freedoms ignored in China. Google, you see, is realizing that it cannot impose its will and wisdom on the governing forces of the world. And certainly not on Italy, and its biggest media group, Mediaset, which is controlled by...

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Remember...all politics is local.

[admin]

Traverse Internet Law at Search Engine Strategies Conference, by John W. Dozier

March 13, 2010

If you missed the ten biggest legal risks for social media sites, contact us for a rundown of the issues discussed. We understand the PowerPoint presentation from the Miami Social Media Conference in January is on the conference site.

We had a lively debate at LeadsCon in Vegas last month in a General Session on FTC and legal compliance.

[admin]

Both Sides of Section 230 Immunity, by John W. Dozier

March 14, 2010

Traverse Internet Law is a private law firm, not a public interest group. So we get to argue both sides of issues since we represent clients-not causes.

In Federal Court in New York we are arguing that our client deserves Section 230 immunity from liability for third party content. And at the same time, in Federal Court in Florida we are arguing that the Defendant is not entitled to Section 230 immunity for liability arising from third party content.

It is critically important to have a balanced perspective on legal matters, and the process of framing legal arguments starts with anticipating and then understanding what the other side is going to argue. Seeing it from both sides makes our job easier. If you cannot argue the other side's case effectively, you cannot deal with your own client's positions most effectively. So when clients wonder whose side we are on, probably thinking we have a pre-defined bias like Public Citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU, the answer is that we are on the side of our client. Whoever that client may be and whatever their thoughts or beliefs may be. At Dozier Internet Law, we don't cloud our vision of vigorously representing the best interests of our clients with our own personal beliefs. We just focus on doing the best job possible for our clients...whoever and wherever they might be.

[admin]

Traverse Internet Law on WebMaster Radio Tomorrow, by John W. Dozier

March 16, 2010

Join Traverse Internet Law at 5:20 PM Eastern on WebMaster Radio will be discussing, and taking calls about, the Google Bomb book and commercial email. Interested in compliance issues and the latest and greatest email issues? This chat may be for you.

[admin]

Traverse Internet Law at AdTech San Fran, by John W. Dozier

April 16, 2010

The Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report reaches thousands of subscribers each month. We pick the best Internet lawsuits filed each month and explain what it means to your online business. And best of all....it's free. Just go to the Traverse Internet Law homepage and follow the directions for signing up. It's getting rave reviews. After all, where else can you find out who is being sued and for what?

[admin]

National Cyberlaw Bar Association Forming, by John W. Dozier

June 08, 2010

Finally, a professional group for true Internet lawyers. An organizational meeting of the Cyberlaw Bar Association is being held July 31 through Augst 1 at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. Here is the website for the bar association and conference: www.cyberlawbarassociation.com.

If you are an Internet lawyer, you need to be there.

[admin]

Internet Lawyer Summit in Vegas, by John W. Dozier

April 02, 2011

Traverse Internet Law is organizing the first Cyberlawyer Summit to be held May 11 and 12 at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. Eighteen of the leading Internet lawyers from across the country have been invited to this small, exclusive meeting focused on client development, synergistic opportunities and business operations. Many of the leading Internet law firms in the country are confirmed participants.

If your law firm is dedicated predominantly to cyberlaw, preferably with a litigation or dispute resolution slant, and you are interested in participating, then drop an email at cybertriallawyer.com (Traverse Internet Law) with information about yourself and your practice. Keep in mind that these meetings during the summit is going to involve mostly senior lawyers with decision making ability...the movers and shakers so to speak. If you are one of those, drop us a line. This is not an educational meeting for young lawyers or those new to the space. Very advanced knowledge and expertise, and seasoned internet law and business operational and marketing capabilities, will be helpful.

[admin]

Traverse Internet Law Data Loss Analysis, by John W. Dozier

April 15, 2011

Data loss has been a hot topic lately. When Epsilon lost the email addresses of millions to hackers, everyone was up in arms and awaiting an onslaught of lawsuits. But Epsilon did not provide services to the consumers victimized by this loss and the only basis for a lawsuit may be a claim asserted by consumers against those very prominent companies who entrusted their data to Epsilon.

At Traverse Internet Law we noted a decision handed down last week in Federal Court in California. The case is linked here: Claridge v. Rockyou, Inc. Note the real problem with proving actual damages in these types of cases. How did losing your data really cost you money? Mere allegations of speculative harm that might arise in the future is likely inadequate to sufficiently allege an injury in fact. Here the Court states its reservations about the injury being adequate but defers his judgment on the issue because of the evolving and unsettled nature of the law on this point.

Traverse Internet Law suggests that in any data loss case the best allegation of damages might be elements laying out an actual or imminently anticipated need to purchase fraud and id theft prevention or detection services from a credit bureau. Given the speculation surrounding what damages are really incurred in data loss cases, such a quantifiable cost with a seemingly reasonable motivation (to curtail phishing expeditions) seems to make the most sense for meeting the damages element threshold.

Tell us what you think. And is there any hope of Epsilon being held accountable for the data loss from consumers? Surely retailers of all sorts are going to look to Epsilon for compensation. Can consumers victimized do likewise?

[admin]

Medical Justice and Eric Goldman's Attack Site, by John W. Dozier

April 16, 2011

Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University and as a former general counsel to Epinions.com has a long standing view of free speech that is, to say the least, one sided. He seems to always support a very liberal interpretation of the scope of free speech in his blog posts, comments, lectures, and presumably in his classes. Now he has joined with UC Berkeley, that bastion of conservative and pro-business thought (tongue firmly implanted in cheek), to launch an attack website against an organization named "Medical Justice" that seeks to assist doctors being attacked by defamatory comments online. I would like to think that this site is truly focused on criticizing the tools offered by Medical Justice. For instance, Medical Justice encourages physicians to take copyright ownership of future comments made by patients so they can use a DMCA takedown notice if a comment is not to their liking and have it removed. I agree with Goldman that this approach is very problematic from a legal standpoint, raises some unanswered questions about the ability to waive constitutionally protected rights, and from a practical standpoint introduces a new risk to physician reputations. My opinion, and I have told many physicians exactly this, is that it is not a wise choice to use this tool or business practice to curb or curtail or prevent negative commentary. So in this sense, I agree with Goldman and his UC Berkeley free speechers. That is...substantively I agree with the primary legal arguments they make.

But the content on the website is misleading. It's not a balanced treatment of the problem. The site is an advocacy site...it advocates from the standpoint of free speech protecting a certain class of consumers and trumping all other rights to the extreme. And instead of offering real solutions, and recognizing that the playing field is unbalanced and against our medical professionals, it simply attacks one ill conceived effort to re-balance that playing field. So, in a nutshell, here is the real problem:

Physician after physician calls Traverse Internet Law to ask for our assistance. Some of these doctors are the tops in their fields with no malpractice claims, no ethics issues and no complaints for 40 years of practice. And then one day a patient who had an excellent outcome decides to criticize the doctor online and demands money from the doctor or the attack will escalate. As the doctor attempts to address the concerns of the former patient, it becomes apparent that there is no problem with the treatment and this is an extortion attempt. Since consumers generally conduct extensive research on doctors, criticism does not have to show up high in search results. Just about anyone can jump on the web and successfully "optimize" an attack against a physician so that it will show up high enough in search results to have an impact. The doctor cannot respond to the attack or criticism or defamation because HIPAA legally prohibits a specific response. And since details imply truth, any response would have to be generic in nature and not address the specific patient's complaints and appear unconvincing and make the problem worse. Now these complaints aren't what one would normally assume....a comment of dissatisfaction. And some of these complaints are all too often targeted at the deep pockets of doctors and include doctored photographs and outrageously false claims of sexual deviance or profoundly illegal actions. One "review" like this will offset 100 positive and honest reviews and place at immediate risk the economic viability of a physician's practice. So the doctor sometimes pays off the extortionist and the attacks cease. You can imagine, and rightfully so, that this is a ripe arena for extortionists to anonymously attack doctors and demand payoffs. Extortionists who have never been patients...but have access to a computer keyboard somewhere in the world. But more that happy to leave a "doctored" legacy that will live on forever in the online world and for generations to come unfairly impugn the character of a medical professional who has made a lifelong commitment to serve the public.

So instead of simply criticising the method by which a very serious problem is being attacked, and presenting the issue merely from the standpoint of free speech and copyright abuse, why not treat the issue in an holistic manner and offer some constructive solutions? The first obvious need is to amend the HIPAA law to permit doctors to defend themselves. Yes, even doctors should have their first amendment protected rights to free speech. Why not encourage Congress to recognize the free speech rights of physicians? So that the marketplace of ideas can operate without artificial impediments. So that the give and take of robust debate will effectively educate the consuming public. And so that free expression from all fronts and from all sides can be heard. That's free speech, Mr. Goldman. Tell your UC Berkeley friends that free speech isn't reserved exclusively for the consuming public, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, those in despair, or the scofflaws of the web.

Now go launch a site that encourages Congress to amend HIPAA so doctors can exercise their free speech rights. Be a true advocate for free speech. If such a change was made to HIPAA Traverse Internet Law would lose a big part of our law practice...but it is still the right thing to do.

If you believe in freedom of speech, you should believe in freedom of speech for everyone.

[admin]

MySpace Murder in Virginia, by John W. Dozier

October 12, 2012

A suspect in the mass murder of four parents and teens in Farmville, Virginia has been arrested at the airport trying to flee to California.

In "Google Bomb" I call for changes to Section 230 immunity so that web sites have the ability to self police. Right now, as the law stands, their hands are tied.

We need change. Now.