For your reading pleasure, a look at some of the week’s top legal news, rolled up into bite-sized pieces:
You’ve got mail!
Unfortunately, if you’re a mortgage lender or a mortgage broker whose advertisements have caught the eye of federal regulators, it’s probably not the type of mail you want to get. The Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are cracking down on misleading advertising in the mortgage business. From Ifrah Law:
“The CFPB and the FTC worked together to review roughly 800 mortgage ads. These ads were produced by entities involved in different aspects of the mortgage process, including mortgage brokers and lenders, lead generators, real estate agents, home builders, and others. The ads were featured on a wide range of media including newspaper, direct mail, email and social media. The agencies stated that some of these ads had specifically targeted the elderly and veterans.”
The review paid off, writes Richard Andreano of Ballard Spahr:
“The CFPB indicated that it sent warning letters to about a dozen mortgage lenders and brokers and has begun formal investigations of six companies whose violations may be more serious. The FTC indicated that it sent warning letters to 20 companies and has also opened investigations.”
Sealed with a kiss? Not likely. (Ifrah Law) (Ballard Spahr) (Leonard, Street and Deinard) (BuckleySandler)
Copy that?
Who would have thought copyright law so complex? Let me rephrase that: who other than a copyright lawyer would have thought copyright law so complex? After all, you either copy a work or you don’t. You buy a film or you download it illegally. You pay to perform a song or do it on the sly. But that doesn’t account for modern technology. For example, writes Ken Basin of law firm Greenberg Glusker:
“… when the copyright infringement case against file-sharing service Grokster finally came before the Supreme Court in 2005, the Court’s nine justices required three separate opinions and the invention of an entire new theory of copyright liability to explain why Grokster was illegal, but other, less offensive services might not be illegal.”
Basin calls copyright law “the simplest, most complicated law you know,” because it takes an 18th century concept – protecting the rights of authors and inventors – and applies it to life in a 21st century world. Like this:
“[I]n 1909, Congress created a special ‘compulsory license’ scheme to allow player piano roll makers to sell song rolls without having to separately seek permission from the original songwriters. Somewhere along the way, some clever lawyer figured out the law was drafted broadly enough to allow for unauthorized cover songs, and now we all have to deal with Avril Lavigne defiling John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ in the name of Darfur relief.”
Imagine that. (Greenberg Glusker)
It’s like Black Friday, but every day of the year
Earlier this year, India announced that it is relaxing its restrictive foreign direct investment rules, permitting foreign retailers, like US giant Wal-Mart and UK grocer Tesco, to sell directly to Indian customers. It’s been a long, uphill battle for the multinationals, but the potential payoff is huge. From law firm Sheppard Mullin:
“Economists estimate that the relaxed foreign investment barriers will create nearly $3 billion in market opportunity for foreign supermarkets in the next five years, and potentially $80 billion by 2021.”
There are still a lot of details to be worked out, and bureaucratic and culture hurdles due to resistance from local merchants and governments to overcome. But the move represents a significant step forward both for multinational retailers and Indian consumers. Again, Sheppard Mullin:
“The influx of retailers may negatively affect domestic traders, but Indian consumers should have a greater access to cheap goods, the lower middle class should attain well-paying jobs, and the local producers of goods should be able to bypass middlemen and sell directly to the retailers. Therefore, the mix of opportunity and activism make the retail reform a welcome sight on the global stage and a needed jolt to the economic policy paralysis in India.”
Get your credit cards ready, India (Sheppard Mullin)
$22.5 million buys a lot of cookies…
It’s official: the $22.5 million fine slapped on Google for violating the terms of its 2011 “Buzz” consent order when the company misrepresented its data collection practices to Apple Safari users has been approved. The settlement was held up in court by advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, which thought that the FTC was going too easy on Google (they were suggesting a fine in the range of $3 to 8 billion). Their challenge was just rejected by the judge reviewing the settlement, who found the fine and related conditions to be “procedurally and substantively fair, adequate, and reasonable.” But it’s not just Google who should be learning a lesson from the settlement, write privacy lawyers Cynthia Larose and Jake Romero from law firm Mintz Levin:
“For businesses that collect and/or use personally identifiable information, the obvious take-away is that one’s policies must correctly and accurately define and describe the uses and maintenance of personal information… Even unintentional misrepresentations about data collection can carry a hefty price tag.”
The $22.5 million? If 2011 revenues are any guide, Google will make that up before the New Year. (Mintz Levin)
Just what the (texting) doctor ordered
Don’t call me, maybe? A federal court just dismissed a Telephone Consumer Practices Act (TCPA) lawsuit against Wal-Mart, accused of sending a text to a pharmacy client without having been giving express consent to do so. Kevin Khurana of law firm Proskauer explains:
“The plaintiff … alleged that when filling her prescription at one of Wal-Mart’s pharmacies, a Wal-Mart employee stated that the plaintiff’s phone number was needed ‘in case there were any questions that came up.’ The plaintiff provided her mobile telephone number to the employee, after which point the plaintiff began receiving text messages from Wal-Mart.”
The court determined that by giving her phone number to the Wal-Mart employee, the client “expressly consented to receiving text messages.” Not a very good way to reward a loyal customer, but legal all the same. (Proskauer)
—-
@lancegodard
