Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

LinkedIN

Reports of social media scams that have caused users to lose money had tripled by the end of 2020’s second quarter, resulting in the loss of $117 million during the first two quarters of this year alone. Romance scams and supposed economic relief offers are a large part of the problem, but e-commerce scams are the biggest culprits, with goods advertised on social media never reaching the consumer. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/blog_posts/Scams%20starting%20on%20social%20media%20proliferate%20in%20early%202020%20/data_spotlight_oct_2020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FTC is offering tips</a> to help you avoid becoming a victim.Should the FCC curtail Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’s protection of sites for liability for third-party content? Both the <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/fccs-top-lawyer-justifies-agencys-role-in-limiting-section-230-protections-for-social-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FCC’s Chairman Ajit Pai, and Tom Johnson, the FCC’s general counsel</a>, have <a href="https://www.axios.com/the-fcc-is-now-ready-to-fight-section-230-6dec58b7-e940-4214-97e9-56afa469c694.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">alluded to the FCC’s power</a>—and their desire—to do it.<a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/stream-ripping-site-sues-the-labels-argues-it-is-simply-offering-a-time-shift-service/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yout.com is seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the site does not violate copyright law</a> by allowing users to obtain permanent downloads of music that YouTube temporarily streams. The suit was instigated by the Recording Industry Association of America’s requests that Google de-list Yout.com because such listing allegedly violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Yout.com is arguing that, like a VCR, it merely allows users to “time-shift” by listening to content at a different time than it is presented.The New York State Department of Financial Services is demanding that the world’s biggest <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-york-financial-watchdog-calls-for-social-media-cybersecurity-regulator-after-twitter-hack-of-biden-and-obama/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">social media platforms establish positions dedicated to monitoring their cyber defense</a>. The call for designated regulators comes in the wake of the financial watchdog’s investigation into an incident back in July in which three people compromised more than 100 Twitter accounts, including those of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden.A district attorney in Los Angeles is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-22/social-media-scandal-santa-clara-police-charges-dropped" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">seeking to dismiss more than a dozen cases</a> in which testimony pivotal to a conviction was given by police officers who published comments or images on social media that were derogatory toward women, Muslims or people of color.For the first time ever, a vote has been cast for a US president in the general election <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/first-presidential-vote-cast-using-blockchain-technology/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">using an app</a> on a personal mobile phone.

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

Social Links: Avoid becoming a social-media-scam victim; does stream-ripping site violate copyright law?

Reports of social media scams that have caused users to lose money had tripled by the end of 2020’s second quarter, resulting in the loss of $117 million during

Social Links: Avoid becoming a social-media-scam victim; does stream-ripping site violate copyright law?

In an attempt to shut down free speech online, Turkey enacted a law that requires social media platforms with more than a million daily users in Turkey to open an office there or assign a representative who is legally accountable to Turkish authorities. Among other things, the law also requires companies to respond within two days to complaints about posts that “violate personal and privacy rights.” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/27/its-a-war-on-words-turks-fear-new-law-to-muzzle-social-media-giants" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Learn what social media companies risk</a> if they don’t comply.Significantly deviating from his former choices for FCC Commissioner, President Trump nominated Nathan Simington to replace current Republican Commissioner Mike O’Reilly. Unlike previous nominees, who were not heavily involved in technology policy, Simington “played a significant role in drafting” an order instructing the FCC to limit Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’s protections for technology companies, according to The Verge. Find out <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438820/fcc-donald-trump-nominate-nathan-simington-commissioner-social-media-section-230-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">why Trump revoked O’Reilly’s nomination for a third term</a>.Spending on advertising in general plummeted in Q2 of 2020 compared to the same quarter last year, with newspaper ad spend dropping by nearly 50% and radio ad spend dropping by about 42%. On the other hand, the dip in social media ad spend was far less significant. Analysts attribute advertisers’ continued interest in social media to COVID-19, saying that social media use skyrocketed during quarantine. <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/356423/q2-ad-spending-analysis-reveals-major-share-increa.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=119982&hashid=icw4eEcCBUZXM8pArHBIb_YN6sc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Find out how little social media’s advertising revenue dropped</a> in Q2 2020.Some of YouTube’s top earners are children. France just passed a law to limit the hours they work and place their earnings in a bank account until they turn 16. You won’t believe <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54447491" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the staggering amounts of cash some of these kids rake in</a>.Harvard Law School has a new social media policy precluding students from posting statements made in class together with enough information to make the speaker identifiable by someone who was not present in class. <a href="https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/harvard-law-introduces-social-media-policy-about-classroom-statements" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Learn the school’s reason</a> for implementing this new policy.A private investigator in Sacramento, California—where a new law classifies COVID-19 as an “injury” under workers’ compensation when certain circumstances apply—is <a href="https://gooddaysacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/09/22/employers-private-investigators-employees-covid-19-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">using people’s social media posts as evidence</a> that they didn’t contract COVID-19 at work.“<a href="https://mashable.com/article/doomswiping-doomscrolling-dating-apps/?utm_source=webpush&utm_medium=notification" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doomswiping</a>” is the latest dating-app trend.

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions.











Anthony Ramirez

Turkey’s new social media law; social media ad spend; Harvard Law School’s social media policy

In an attempt to shut down free speech online, Turkey enacted a law that requires social media platforms with more than a million daily users in Turkey to open 

Turkey’s new social media law; social media ad spend; Harvard Law School’s social media policy

On July 10, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a 140-page <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/tcpa-omnibus-declaratory-ruling-and-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order</a> in response to more than two dozen petitions from businesses, attorneys general, and consumers seeking clarity on how the FCC interprets the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). As noted in vigorous <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-72a5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dissents by Commissioners Pai</a> and <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-72a6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">O’Rielly</a>, several of the rulings seem likely to increase TCPA litigation and raise a host of compliance issues for businesses engaged in telemarketing or other practices that involve calling or sending text messages to consumers.Since the FCC issued the order, trade associations and companies have filed multiple petitions for review in courts of appeals challenging the order (for example, see here and here). It will thus ultimately be up to the courts of appeals to decide whether the FCC’s new interpretations of the TCPA are reasonable.What is an “Automatic Telephone Dialing System”? The TCPA generally prohibits certain calls to cell phones made with an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227" target="_blank" rel="noopener">As defined by statute</a>, an ATDS is “equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” In the absence of statutory or FCC guidance, some courts have <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/19/07-16356.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">construed</a> “capacity” broadly to encompass any equipment that is capable of automatically dialing random or sequential numbers, even if it does not actually do so, or even if it must be altered to make it capable of doing so.In light of these decisions, a number of entities asked the FCC to clarify that equipment does not qualify as an ATDS unless it has the present capacity to generate and dial random or sequential numbers.In its <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/tcpa-omnibus-declaratory-ruling-and-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the FCC found that an ATDS includes equipment with both the present and potential capacity to generate and dial random or sequential numbers, even if such potential would require modification or additional software in order to do so. An ATDS also includes equipment with the present or potential capacity to dial numbers from a database of numbers.The FCC, however, did state that “there must be more than a theoretical potential that the equipment could be modified to satisfy the [ATDS] definition.”  Per this limitation, the FCC explicitly excluded from the definition of an ATDS a “rotary-dial phone.”Consent of the Current Subscriber or User The TCPA exempts from liability calls to mobile phones “made with the prior express consent of the called party.” It does not, however, define “called party” for purposes of this provision, and courts have divided over how to construe that term.Some courts have construed the term to mean the actual subscriber to the called mobile number at the time of the call, while others have construed it to mean the intended recipient of the call. The distinction is critical because consumers often give up their mobile phone numbers and those numbers are reassigned to other people, meaning that the actual subscriber and the intended recipient may not be the same person.Faced with lawsuits from owners of such reassigned numbers, a number of entities petitioned the FCC, asking it to clarify that calls to reassigned mobile numbers were not subject to TCPA liability where the caller was unaware of the reassignment, and to adopt the interpretation that “called party” means the intended recipient of the call.In response to petitions seeking clarity on this issue, the FCC ruled that the “called party” for purposes of determining consent under the TCPA’s mobile phone provisions is “the subscriber, i.e., the consumer assigned the telephone number dialed and billed for the call, or the non-subscriber customary user of a telephone number included in a family or business calling plan.”Consistent with its interpretation of “called party,” the FCC further ruled that where a wireless phone number has been reassigned, the caller must have the prior express consent of the current subscriber (or current non-subscriber customary user of the phone), not the previous subscriber. Businesses, however, may have properly obtained prior express consent from the previous wireless subscriber and will not know that the number has been reassigned. The FCC thus allows a business to make one additional call to a reassigned wireless number without incurring liability, provided the business did not know the number had been reassigned and had a reasonable basis to believe the business had the intended recipient’s consent.Is Consent Revocable?The TCPA is silent as to whether, or how, a called party can revoke his or her prior express consent to be called. Given that silence, one entity petitioned the FCC to request that the Commission clarify that prior consent to receive non-telemarketing calls and text messages was irrevocable or, in the alternative, set forth explicit methods of revocation. In response, the FCC ruled that consent is revocable (with regard to both telemarketing and non-telemarketing calls), and that such revocation may be made “in any manner that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further messages.” Consumers may use “any reasonable method, including orally or in writing,” to communicate that revocation and callers may not designate an exclusive means of revocation.The “Urgent Circumstances” Exemption to Consent Requirement Notwithstanding the FCC’s rulings regarding prior express consent, the FCC took this opportunity to create several new exemptions to that requirement with regard to certain non-marketing calls made to cellular phones. The FCC exempted the following types of calls:<ul><li>Calls concerning “transactions and events that suggest a risk of fraud or identity theft”;</li><li>Calls concerning “possible breaches of the security of customers’ personal information”;</li><li>Calls concerning “steps consumers can take to prevent or remedy harm caused by data security breaches”;</li><li>Calls concerning “actions needed to arrange for receipt of pending money transfers”; and</li><li>Calls “for which there is exigency and that have a healthcare treatment purpose, specifically: appointment and exam confirmations and reminders, wellness checkups, hospital pre-registration instructions, pre-operative instructions, lab results, post-discharge follow-up intended to prevent readmission, prescription notifications, and home healthcare instructions.”First and foremost, the consumer must not be charged for the calls.</li><li>Further, such calls must be limited to no more than three calls over a three-day period, must be concise (generally 1 minute or 160 characters, if sent via text message), cannot include marketing or advertising content (or financial content, in the case of healthcare calls), and must have some mechanism for customer opt-out be provided.</li><li>The FCC reasoned that all of the aforementioned types of calls involved urgent circumstances where quick, timely communication with a consumer was critical to prevent financial harm or provide health care treatment. Although prior express consent is not required, such calls are still subject to a number of limitations.</li></ul>Other Consent IssuesIn addition to the points above concerning consent, the FCC also ruled on a number of specific consent issues, described here in brief:<ul><li>Provision of Phone Number to a Health Care Provider. Clarifying an earlier ruling, the FCC ruled that the “provision of a phone number to a healthcare provider constitutes prior express consent for healthcare calls subject to HIPAA by a HIPAA-covered entity and business associates acting on its behalf, as defined by HIPAA, if the covered entities and business associates are making calls within the scope of the consent given, and absent instructions to the contrary.”</li></ul><ul><li>Third-Party Consent on Behalf of Incapacitated Patients. The FCC ruled that consent to contact an incapacitated patient may be obtained from a third-party intermediary, although such consent terminates once the patient is capable of consenting on his or her behalf.</li><li>Ported Phone Numbers. In response to a request for clarification, the FCC ruled that porting a telephone number from wireline service (i.e., a land line) to wireless service does not revoke prior express consent.</li><li>Consent Obtained Prior to the Current Rules. In response to petitions requesting relief from or clarification of the prior-express-written-consent rule that went into effect on October 16, 2013, the FCC ruled that “telemarketers should not rely on a consumer’s written consent obtained before the current rule took effect if that consent does satisfy the current rule.”</li><li>Consent via Contact List. In response to a petition concerning the use of smartphone apps to initiate calls or text messages, the FCC ruled that the mere fact that a contact may appear in a user’s contact list or address book does not establish consent to receive a message from the app platform.</li><li>On Demand Text Offers. In response to a petition concerning so-called “on demand text offers,” the FCC ruled that such messages do not violate the TCPA as long as they (1) are requested by the consumer; (2) are a one-time message sent immediately in response to that request; and (3) contain only the requested information with no other marketing information. Under such conditions, the messages are presumed to be within the scope of the consumer’s consent.</li></ul>Calls Placed by Users of Apps and Calling PlatformsThe FCC also addressed a number of petitions seeking guidance as to who “makes” or “initiates” a call under the TCPA (and is thus liable for TCPA violations) in a variety of scenarios involving calls or text messages made by smartphone apps and calling platforms.The FCC offered no clear rule, and instead held that to answer this question “we look to the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the placing of a particular call to determine: 1) who took the steps necessary to physically place the call; and 2) whether another person or entity was so involved in placing the call as to be deemed to have initiated it, considering the goals and purposes of the TCPA.”The FCC noted that relevant factors could include “the extent to which a person willfully enables fraudulent spoofing of telephone numbers or assists telemarketers in blocking Caller ID” as well as “whether a person who offers a calling platform service for the use of others has knowingly allowed its client(s) to use that platform for unlawful purposes.”Authorization of “Do Not Disturb” TechnologyFinally, at the request of petitioning state attorneys general, the FCC affirmed that nothing in the Communications Act or FCC rules or orders prohibits telephone carriers or VoIP providers from implementing call-blocking technology to stop unwanted “robocalls.” The FCC explained that such carriers “may legally block calls or categories of calls at a consumer’s request if available technology identifies incoming calls as originating from a source that the technology, which the consumer has selected to provide this service, has identified.”  The FCC “strongly encourage[d]” carriers to develop such technology to assist consumers.

CCPA and Data Breach Class Action for Leading Software Company

BIPA Class Action Against Gaming and Hospitality Company

TCPA and Other Class Actions for Major Technology Company

Data Breach Class Action for Technology Company

Wiretap Act action against a Major Consumer Electronics Manufacturer

TCPA Class Action Against National Chain

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation

In re Verizon Wireless Data Charges Litigation

cheung_tiffany_blog_150x150.png

cheung_tiffany_common_640x280.jpg

cheung_tiffany_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

cheung_tiffany_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

cheung_tiffany_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Tiffany for her successful track record in defending class action claims on behalf of clients in a broad range of industries, including technology, healthcare, and consumer product companies. She represents numerous Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes litigation involving privacy and marketing claims in courts throughout the United States.

Tiffany Cheung

Clients seek out Tiffany for her successful track record in defending class action claims on behalf of clients in a broad range of industries, including technology, healthcare, and consumer product companies. She represents numerous Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes litigation involving privacy and marketing claims in courts throughout the United States.

cell_istock_000024872497xlarge-300x225-1.jpg

FCC Clarifies Its Interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Provoking Strong Objections From the Business Community

FCC Clarifies Its Interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Provoking Strong Objections From the Business Community