Photo of Tracy MarshallPhoto of Sheila Millar

You might think that paying more than $9 million to settle charges of violating the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Mail Order Rule would have spurred clothing retailer Fashion Nova, LLC to review its consumer protection compliance posture. But for the second time in two years, Fashion Nova has found itself in trouble with the FTC,

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

Two important settlements involving alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) were announced in December 2021. Actions by both federal and state regulators reinforce that COPPA remains on the regulatory radar screen, particularly when it comes to ad tech. Efforts to more broadly limit programmatic advertising are also underway.

FTC and OpenX

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Jean-Cyril Walker

Environmentally conscious consumers often look for products advertised as “green.” But labeling plastic products as “biodegradable” may land you on the legal compost heap if you can’t meet federal and state regulations governing green marketing. Amazon was just the latest company to find itself in the crosshairs when 23 California district attorneys charged that it

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Douglas J. BehrPhoto of Tracy Marshall
SCOTUS at dusk, Joe Ravi | CC-BY-SA 3.0
Joe Ravi | CC-BY-SA 3.0

Last year, we noted that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in a case that could limit the ability of plaintiffs to sue defendants over bare statutory violations without the showing of actual injury. The case implicates a wide variety of statutes that grant monetary awards to successful plaintiffs on

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Douglas J. Behr

Availability of insurance is often among the first questions that arises when a company encounters a data breach or other Internet-related problem involving company records, even where the company lacks a cyberinsurance policy. The federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling by a District Court that required insurance coverage for an inadvertent

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

The Supreme Court yesterday denied an attempt by a defendant to moot a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 48 Stat. 1064, Pub. L. 102–243 (Dec. 20, 1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227), on the basis of an unaccepted settlement offer to the named plaintiff. The case, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

Lumosity, an online site and smartphone app, is supposed to help its users train their brains so they can achieve their “full potential in every aspect of life.” Unfortunately, the company was unenlightened when it came to avoiding false advertising claims. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the company claimed that using its

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

On December 17, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Lifelock, Inc. (LifeLock), agreed to pay a record-breaking $100 million to settle charges that it violated an earlier consent agreement related to flawed data security practices issued in March 2010. The LifeLock settlements implicate both the “fairness” of the company’s data security practices and

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

The Article 29 Working Party (WP) issued a press release on October 16, 2015 announcing the outcome of the meeting to discuss coordinated action after the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) decision in the matter of Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (C-362-14), which invalidated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Agreement. While calling for