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

A federal district court in Illinois allowed claims for vicarious and direct copyright infringement to proceed against an employee of the Chicago Cubs Baseball Club for retweeting a third-party tweet containing the plaintiff’s copyrighted material. <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3145&context=historical" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Read the opinion</a>.Thinking of backing Biden in November? Would his <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-techs-legal-shield-section-230.html">unequivocal opinion</a> on <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230">Section 230</a> of the Communications Decency Act affect your decision?In an <a href="http://business.cch.com/ipld/GregYoungPublishingZazzle20191120.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">opinion important to platforms that monetize user-generated content</a>, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the safe harbor provisions in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">§512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)</a> did not exempt Zazzle—a company that creates and sells items such as t-shirts and mugs bearing images uploaded by users—from copyright liability for willfully infringing 35 separate copyrighted works. In one of this blog’s most popular posts ever, I explain <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2016/08/10/ugcrisk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">how platforms that commercialize their user-generated content can reduce their risk</a>.The advertising industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are encouraging California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/346379/ad-groups-want-california-to-hold-off-enforcing-pr.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=readmore&utm_campaign=117012&hashid=NDVHOmKrFJOy4V9Oy6E3fBNv4VU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">postpone the anticipated July enforcement</a> of the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/special-content/california-consumer-privacy-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">California Consumer Privacy Act</a>, citing the law’s complexity.The estate of the late musician Prince successfully brought a copyright infringement claim against an individual who unofficially recorded and uploaded videos containing performances of copyrighted songs. Accordingly to a federal district court in Massachusetts, the videos do not qualify for the fair use exception to copyright infringement because the uploader/defendant “did not imbue Prince’s musical compositions with new meaning or add any of his own expression to the underlying works.” <a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/us-court-rules-fair-use-didnt-apply-to-unofficial-prince-videos-on-youtube/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Read more of the court’s reasoning</a>.In a controversy as old as the Internet itself, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/17/should-social-media-users-have-to-use-their-real-names" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Germans are debating</a> whether social media users should be permitted to remain anonymous.Actor Steven Seagal will pay more than $300,000 to resolve U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission claims that he failed to tell Twitter and Facebook followers he was being paid to promote an initial coin offering.Twitter has a special process for reviewing tweets by public figures—including President Trump—that have been flagged for potentially violating the platform’s rules. This <a href="https://fortune.com/2020/01/15/twitter-top-lawyer-vijaya-gadde-blocks-tweets-donald-trump/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">profile of Twitter’s top lawyer</a>, Vijaya Gadde, describes it.

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

Social Links: Biden’s stance on CDA §230; liability for user-generated content; Twitter’s process for reviewing Trump’s tweets

A federal district court in Illinois allowed claims for vicarious and direct copyright infringement to proceed against an employee of the Chicago Cubs Baseball 

Social Links: Biden’s stance on CDA §230; liability for user-generated content; Twitter’s process for reviewing Trump’s tweets

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) appears to be using its ongoing <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/retrospective-review-ftc-rules-guides" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">review of current rules and guides</a> to revisit its approach to driving home the message that the relationship between a social media “influencer” and the brand he or she is endorsing must be disclosed. As we have <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/191119-guidance-online-endorsers.html">described previously</a>, the FTC has interpreted its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Endorsement Guides</a>”) to require that online advertisements — like all other advertising — clearly and conspicuously disclose material connections between endorsers (i.e., influencers) and the brands they promote because such connections may affect the credibility of the endorsement. And, <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt4ee798a78572856b/6273192fb5ad5f2863c596ac/180222-ftcs-quest-influencer.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">in recent years</a>, the FTC has — through enforcement actions, press releases, guidance, closing letters, and letters sent directly to endorsers (including prominent public figures) — made clear its belief that: (1) appropriate disclosures by influencers are essential to protecting consumers; and (2) in too many instances, such disclosures are absent from celebrity or other influencer endorsements.Now, in connection with a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/02/21/2020-03447/guides-concerning-the-use-of-endorsements-and-testimonials-in-advertising" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">request for comments</a> on the Endorsement Guides, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra has issued a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1566445/p204500_-_endorsement_guides_reg_review_-_chopra_stmt.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">scathing statement</a> calling on the FTC to “take bold steps to safeguard our digital economy from lies, distortions, and disinformation.” In this regard, Commissioner Chopra suggests that the FTC’s efforts to date have not been effective in “deterring misconduct in the marketplace” relating to inauthentic and fake reviews, and that, in particular, elements of the Endorsement Guides should be codified as formal rules so that violators can be liable for civil penalties and damages under the FTC Act.Also of note is that Commissioner Chopra has asserted that the FTC should refocus its efforts on advertisers themselves, and not the influencers that promote their brands.  According to the Commissioner, “when companies launder advertising by paying someone for a seemingly authentic endorsement or review, this is illegal payola,” and “companies paying for undisclosed influencer endorsements and reviews are not [being] held fully accountable for this illegal activity.” Seeking to aggressively penalize advertisers themselves would be a shift in emphasis for the FTC, as its recent efforts to combat inadequate disclosures in influencer advertising have focused on influencers. For example, the FTC recently produced a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/11/ftc-releases-advertising-disclosures-guidance-online-influencers?utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">brochure</a> detailing the responsibility of influencers “to make [required] disclosures, to be familiar with the Endorsement Guides, and to comply with laws against deceptive ads.” The FTC also brought an enforcement action against influencers, and foreshadowed that more enforcement will happen in the future.Comments on the Endorsement Guides are due April 21, 2020. In the federal register notice, the FTC outlines ten questions, summarized below, that are of particular interest. In addressing these questions, commenters should also consider whether to respond to the concerns raised by Commissioner Chopra regarding how to ensure that material connections between advertisers and endorsers are appropriately disclosed, including whether a ratcheting up of FTC enforcement powers is warranted.1. Are the practices addressed by the Guides prevalent in the marketplace and are the Guides are effective when addressing those practices?2. Are consumers benefiting from the Guides and what impact, if any, are the Guides having on the flow of truthful information to consumers?3. Are changes in technology or the economy requiring changes in the Guides?4. Should guidance in “<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The FTC’s Enforcement Guides: What People Are Asking</a>” be incorporated into the Guides?5. How well are advertisers and endorsers disclosing unexpected material connections in social media?6. Are children capable of understanding disclosures of material connections and how those disclosures might affect them?7. Do incentives like free or discounted products bias consumer reviews, even when a favorable review is not required to receive the incentive, and how should those incentives be disclosed?8. Are composite ratings that include reviews based on incentives misleading even when reviewers disclose incentives in the underlying reviews?9. Should the Guides address the use of affiliate links by endorsers?10. What, if any, disclosures do advertisers or operators of review sites need to make about the collection, processing, and publication of reviews to prevent them from being deceptive or unfair?Material changes in the Endorsement Guides and the FTC’s approach to combatting deceptive advertising involving influencers could have a significant effect on all participants in the digital advertising ecosystem. Accordingly, all ad agencies, advertisers, and endorsers should consider a review of the Endorsement Guides compared with their own approaches to compliance, as well as whether to weigh in on the FTC’s request for comments.

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).

03_03_sociallyaware_blog-300x200.jpg

Fake News & Paid Reviews: FTC Seeks Comments on its Endorsement Guides

Fake News & Paid Reviews: FTC Seeks Comments on its Endorsement Guides

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) appears to be using its ongoing review of current rules and guides to revisit its approach to driving home the message that t

Every day, social media users upload millions of images to their accounts; each day 350 million photos are uploaded to Facebook alone. Many social media websites make users’ information and images available to anyone with a web browser. The wealth of public information available on social media is immensely valuable, and the practice of webscraping—third parties using bots to scrape public information from websites to monetize the information—is increasingly common.The photographs on social media sites raise thorny issues because they feature individuals’ biometric data—a type of data that is essentially immutable and highly personal. Because of the heighted privacy concerns, collecting, analyzing and selling biometric data was long considered taboo by tech companies — at least until Clearview AI launched its facial recognition software.<h5>Clearview AI’s Facial Recognition Database</h5>In 2016, a developer named Hoan Ton-That began creating a facial recognition algorithm. In 2017, after refining the algorithm, Ton-That, along with his business partner Richard Schwartz (former advisor to Rudy Giuliani) founded Clearview AI and began marketing its facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies. Clearview AI reportedly populates its photo database with publicly available images scraped from social media sites, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Venmo, and many others. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New York Times</a> reported that the database has amassed more than three billion images.By analyzing the biometric information from the images in the database, Clearview AI allows a user to upload a photo of any person and immediately see all publicly available photos of that person, along with links to where those photos appear. According to the company, Clearview AI’s facial recognition software has been used by more than 600 law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.While Clearview AI touts its software as groundbreaking, such an expansive facial recognition database raises serious privacy concerns. Several U.S. senators, along with several digital rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have criticized Clearview AI for eroding individual privacy rights. Recently, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/technology/clearview-ai-twitter-letter.html">Twitter sent a cease-and-desist letter to Clearview AI</a> accusing Clearview AI of violating Twitter’s policies and demanding that Clearview AI stop taking photos and other data from the site. Similar cease and desist letters from Google, Facebook, Venmo and YouTube reportedly followed.<h5>Litigation Against Clearview AI</h5>Clearview AI has received additional scrutiny after being served with three class action complaints, two <a href="https://www.classaction.org/media/hall-v-clearview-ai-inc-et-al.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pending</a> in the <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Surveillance-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois</a> and one pending in the <a href="http://websterbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Clearview-AI-Class-Action-Lawsuit.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia</a>. In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that will (a) bar Clearview AI from collecting the class members’ photographs and (b) order Clearview AI to delete all class members’ data from the company’s database, potentially destroying Clearview AI’s business. The complaints in these cases provide examples of some of the legal claims available to individuals to combat unauthorized webscraping of their private information.In the first lawsuit, the plaintiff, Illinois resident David Mutnick, seeks class certification on behalf of a nationwide Constitutional Rights Class as well as an Illinois Class. On behalf of those classes, Mutnick alleges a combination of constitutional and state law claims.Mutnick asserts a variety of constitutional claims arising under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, along with violation of the Contracts Clause. While Clearview AI is not a state actor and thus typically not subject to constitutional claims, Mutnick argues that Clearview AI conspired with state actors to violate his federally protected rights and Clearview AI is a liable private party under a “joint participation” theory.In the second lawsuit, the plaintiff, Illinois resident Anthony Hall, asserts several state law claims on behalf of a class of Illinois residents. Hall alleges that Clearview AI’s unauthorized webscraping and sale of its software give rise to a common law conversion claim and violate the <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2356&ChapterID=67" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act</a>.Additionally, both Mutnick and Hall also allege multiple violations of the <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act</a>. This Illinois law: (1) prohibits private companies from collecting individual biometric data without first notifying the individual and obtaining their written consent; (2) limits the circumstances under which biometric data may be disclosed; and; (3) prohibits private entities from profiting from the biometric information. Under the statute, individuals have a private right of action to enforce the law against companies that violate it and may recover up to $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation.The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is currently the most stringent biometric privacy law in the United States, and it is the only biometric privacy law that provides a private right of action. It is a powerful statute.In the third lawsuit, the plaintiff, Virginia resident Shelby Roberson, asserts several state law claims. Roberson alleges that by scraping the class members’ images, Clearview AI violated several provisions off the <a href="https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter5/section18.2-152.1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia Computer Crimes Act</a>. She also alleges that Clearview AI’s use of the images violates <a href="https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter3/section8.01-40/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Va. Code § 8.01-40</a>, a state law provision that gives individuals the right to control the commercial use of their names and images.The outcome in each of these lawsuits remains to be seen, but given the privacy implications of Clearview AI’s software, it would be surprising if more parties don’t also assert claims against Clearview AI.<h5>Other Potential Claims of Unauthorized Webscraping Against Clearview AI</h5>The various social media sites from which Clearview AI took the photos that populate its database have tools at their disposal to combat unauthorized webscraping.<ul><li><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:</a>(CFAA): The CFAA prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization, or exceeding authorized access, and thereby obtaining information from any protected computer. The statute defines the term “computer” broadly enough to include all devices used to access social media websites. In some jurisdictions, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/ef-cultural-travel-bv-v-zefer-corp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a webscraper may be subject to liability under the CFAA merely by breaching a website’s terms of use</a>. The Ninth Circuit, however, has recently <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-16783/17-16783-2019-09-09.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interpreted the scope of the CFAA more narrowly</a>. Whether the CFAA prohibits unauthorized webscraping is an issue that <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1237505/linkedin-will-go-to-supreme-court-over-data-scraping" target="_blank" rel="noopener">may end up in the Supreme Court</a>.</li><li>Trespass to chattels: This common law tort action provides redress for the unauthorized use or intermeddling with another’s personal property. Traditionally the claim required an actual physical trespass. However, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/ebay-v-bidders-edge">some jurisdictions</a> have found that <a href="https://casetext.com/case/registercom-inc-v-verio-inc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exceeding the scope of consent of use of private computer servers may amount to trespass to chattels</a>.</li><li>Breach of Contract: Third parties who agree to the terms of use of a website, such as by clicking that they agree, may be liable for breach of contract where they violate those terms by scraping data from the site. Even if a webscraper has not affirmatively agreed to the terms of use, some courts have found that once that party is clearly informed of the terms of use by any means, such as through a cease and desist letter, continuing to violate those terms <a href="https://casetext.com/case/registercom-inc-v-verio-inc-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">could provide the basis for a breach of contract claim</a>.</li><li>Copyright Infringement: The Copyright Act protects “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression</a>” and the “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/501" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright</a>” may sue for infringement when its copyrights are infringed. The photos that Clearview AI copies to populate its database are copyrightable works and scraping the images may amount to copyright infringement. Whether social media sites would have standing to assert copyright infringement claims against Clearview AI would depend on the agreement with their users, but even if the social media sites do not have standing as the legal or beneficial owner of the images, the users themselves may.</li></ul>These are only some of the tools available to social media sites to combat unauthorized webscraping by firms like Clearview AI. And when it comes to copying personal photos, even individuals outside Illinois who are not protected by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act may have independent misappropriation or breach of privacy claims. As other states consider enacting or expanding data privacy and biometric privacy laws, the number of options available to challenge unauthorized webscraping will likely continue to grow. In the meantime, Clearview AI and the controversy surrounding it highlight how important it is to understand artificial intelligence and how it intersects with the law.