February 12, 2007 | Posted by Reingold, Barry
Topics: Commentary, Rule, Statute
Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular Wireless each contracted with DirectRevenue LLC to deliver ads to consumers. To service its clients (including Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular Wireless), DR installed adware on millions of computers. The adware, which was undisclosed to users and difficult to remove, monitored the websites visited by the users and collected the information they typed into web forms. The NY AG filed a law suit alleging that DirectRevenue had violated New York consumer protection law, then pursued DirectRevenue's three major advertiser clients.
|
April 3, 2000 | Posted by Contributor
Topic: Case
208 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2000)
Federal
Defendant in fraud trial appealed trial judge's exclusion of allegedly exculpatory evidence on third party web sites. Defendant attempted to qualify evidence under exception to hearsay rule for business records, arguing the materials were business records of the third parties' ISPs.
|
August 6, 1999 | Posted by Contributor
Topic: Case
184 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir., 1999)
Federal
Court upheld regulation of U.S. Archivist allowing federal agency email and word processing files on personal computers to be destroyed once copied to paper or electronic record keeping system.
|
February 19, 1998 | Posted by Contributor
Topic: Case
217 Wis. 2d 290 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998)
WI
A pharmacy chain that accepted prescriptions by email should not have been censured by a state pharmacy examining board for violating state law by filling prescriptions that did not bear a signature, since filing prescriptions by email is more akin to filing them by telephone than by written document. Since telephone filing of prescriptions is already permitted, email filing should not be considered a violation because of the absence of a signature.
|
October 22, 1997 | Posted by Contributor
Topic: Case
2 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 1997)
Federal
Court struck down rule promulgated under the Federal Records Disposal Act providing for destruction of electronic files once copied to paper, microform or electronic record-keeping system. The Rule made no distinction between administrative or housekeeping files versus substantive files, and treated all electronic records equally.
|