The Federal Trade Commission means business when it comes to regulating Instagram advertisements.

The consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen recently complained celebrities weren’t being upfront about which of their posts were sponsored. So, the FTC responded by reviewing the photos and sending warning letters to more than 90 Instagram users. The commission has discussed its standards for advertising on social media before, but has not directly confronted the celebrities named in complaints until now.

Public Citizen wasn’t alone in its push to make sponsored content more transparent—this past summer, the nonprofit Truth in Advertising filed a complaint against the Kardashian family for “deceptive marketing.” Though the FTC won’t name which celebrities received the letters, Public Citizen also included the Kardashians in its petition, in addition to well-known Instagrammers like Rihanna, Michael Phelps, Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsay Lohan, Lebron James, Drake, Mark Wahlberg, and Blake Lively.

The 113 photos Public Citizen referenced in its complaint usually show the celebrities using a product from the brand that has paid them, with an accompanying caption endorsing it. Products range from makeup and hair care from companies like L’Oreal to athletic gear from Nike and Adidas to snacks from Lay’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.

According to a release on the FTC’s website:

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides provide that if there is a ‘material connection’ between an endorser and an advertiser – in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement – that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless it is already clear from the context of the communication. A material connection could be a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the gift of a free product. Importantly, the Endorsement Guides apply to both marketers and endorsers.

The release adds that Instagrammers should be clear that their post is an ad within the first three lines of the photo caption, and should avoid writing too many hashtags that could bury disclaimers. The use of hashtags and captions like “#sp” (short for “sponsored”), “Thanks [Brand],” or “partner” do not directly communicate that the post is sponsored and can confuse followers, the FTC says.

In its Endorsement Guides, the FTC writes that ads should be “honest and not misleading”—and consumers should know when they’re reading an endorsement that has been paid-for, because it can affect the way they “[evaluate] the endorser’s glowing recommendation.”

This doesn’t mean your favorite actors, athletes and reality stars are headed to court or getting banned from Instagram anytime soon. Often, it’s the sponsor behind the post that ends up taking the heat for its sneaky ad campaigns. In July, Warner Bros. settled charges that it failed to disclose information about paying “influencers,” like Youtube star PewDiePie, to recommend one of its video games. In March, the department store Lord & Taylor settled charges over its failure to inform consumers that it had sent popular Instagram users free clothing in exchange for promotion of one of its clothing lines.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FTC Isn’t Kidding About Instagram Ads appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, March 13 the 68 teams vying for the Men’s NCAA basketball championship were selected, and actual play started just a few days later. While the tournament will capture the spotlight and attention of millions for nearly a month, there are a number of other related events that often go unnoticed. This includes everything from massive amounts of money changing hands to the number of work hours wasted checking phones, computers, or simply watching the tournament. Keep reading to find out the impact of the NCAA basketball tournament beyond filling out brackets and the action on the court.

History

Although the current men’s tournament is portrayed as some early spring colossus, this was not always the case. The men’s tournament began in 1939–that year Oregon defeated Ohio State in the final game. Even after its start, the original tournament would be almost unrecognizable by today’s standards, with only eight teams competing for the first 12 years. At that time the tournament was so insignificant, in fact, another tournament, the National Invitation Tournament (NIT), decided the national champion.

The tournament slowly expanded to 16 teams in 1951 then to 22 teams in 1953. The number stayed relatively static for the next twenty years. In 1975, the field grew again to 32, incorporating teams beyond the conference champions. The tournament stretched to 40 teams in 1979 and 48 the subsequent year. In 1983, the number of teams increased to 53, eventually reaching the familiar number of 64 in 1985.

The field grew again in 2001, finally reaching 68 teams in 2010. The competition now includes four play-in games before the traditional tournament starts. Along with the tournament’s consistent growth in size came new methods of selecting teams and seeding them after selection.

The women’s tournament began much later in 1982 but started on a larger scale with a 32-team field. The women’s tournament later expanded to its current size of 64 teams. Apart from slight differences, like play-in games, the men’s and women’s tournaments operate in the same fashion with four regions whittled down to a final four then a semifinal and the national championship.

NCAA

The men’s and women’s basketball tournaments are run by an organization known as the NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, which administers and oversees college-level athletics in the United States. It began in 1906, adopting its current name in 1910, as an organization to codify college football rules and those of other sports. While it is hard to fathom today, the organization lacked any real clout until 1942, and particularly gained prestige in 1952, when it began regulating live football coverage. In 1973, it separated into three divisions: Division I, Division II, and Division III. The larger schools with larger budgets play in Divisions I and II and smaller schools play in Division III.

Today the NCAA oversees collegiate athletics regionally and nationally, including 80 national championships which spread across 20 sports in the three divisions. Along with determining rules and performing administrative tasks, the NCAA’s other function–one that draws a lot of criticism–is determining eligibility.

Moneymaking

As both the bracket and the NCAA have grown over the years, so too has profit from the basketball tournament. While this is often seen as a time of entertainment and friendly bets at its core, there is a massive amount of money changing hands. In 2014 for example, advertisers alone spent $1.13 billion to show ads on networks during the NCAA tournament. Furthermore, over a 10-year period ending in 2014, revenues exceeded $7.5 billion. Much of this money then goes to the NCAA through licensing deals. Of the $1.13 billion in 2014, approximately $800 million went to the NCAA for licensing fees. The video below looks at the business side of the tournament:

The NCAA sends most of this money to the participating schools. How this process works is for every non-championship game played in the tournament a team earns its conference a unit of money. The money is then paid out to the conferences over a six-year period based on the number of games its teams played. The conferences typically split the money among member teams. Since the money is split among every team in a conference, some schools earn less than if they were able to keep their respective winnings. However, this provides a needed source of income for teams not consistently in contention. Even with this bonus–along with streams of income like ticket sales, boosters, and merchandise–nearly one-third of teams lose money or just break even on their basketball programs after expenses.

Gambling

Unsurprisingly, for a tournament that generates so much money and interest, gambling plays a major role. This gambling is generally divided into two parts. The form that is most often associated with the tournament is done through bracket pools, which are filled out across the country in businesses, schools, and among friends. While this good-natured form generally includes only small wagers, it is probably illegal for most. But when it comes to enforcement, the authorities typically don’t intervene.

The other form is the high stakes level of gambling. Betting on the NCAA men’s basketball tournament even surpasses the amount bet on the Super Bowl, though, the tournament spans several games. According to estimates from the American Gaming Association (AGA), $9.2 is expected to be bet on this year’s tournament and Americans will fill out approximately 70 million brackets. But according to the AGA, much of that is done illegally. In a press release the association notes:

Of the $9.2 billion that will be wagered this year, only about $262 million will be bet legally at Nevada sports books. The total illegal sports betting market in the United States grew to $148.8 billion in 2015.

The following video looks at the gambling associated with the tournament:

Amateurism

One of the largest issues surrounding March Madness, beyond gambling and its legality, is the role of the athletes who remain unpaid as the NCAA, basketball conferences, schools, and gamblers profit. Collegiate athletes are considered amateurs by the NCAA, which prevents them from earning money for their work. Instead, they are paid in scholarships. While other students, particularly those with student debt, may see athletes’ free education like a decent deal, its value is often far below market value for what the athletes generate.

Athletes are also unable to augment their wages with endorsements or money from agents or boosters. In fact, athletes are barred from having any contact with agents until they give up their amateur status. But universities are free to accept money from and even depend upon boosters. Athletes in sports like basketball and football are also barred from jumping straight to American professional leagues as well, leaving them few options other than going to college or playing professionally overseas. The demands of playing Division I or II sports may also detract from athletes’ educations.

The scholarships that are available to student athletes are also misunderstood. They are often seen as a “full ride,” but many athletes are not guaranteed the scholarship for the full four years. Until 2012, schools were not even allowed to give out multi-year scholarships. This means that coaches and athletic directors have the power to take away scholarships for players who are not performing while players have less ability to seek recourse. Even for those who maintain their good standing and their scholarships, the value is often not enough to live on, which could tempt some to take money from money from people like agents, violating NCAA rules.

The amateur system in the NCAA is well-known and has sparked several lawsuits and legal actions. Perhaps the most prominent example is Northwestern University football players’ attempt to unionize. The issue remains far from settled, and even if these athletes eventually do get paid, a system for compensation could be particularly complicated given the nature of college sports and the money involved.

The following video provides a good look at the question of amateurism:

Lost Productivity

March Madness may not be unfair just to the athletes, it also impacts businesses across the United States in the form of lost productivity. According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, employers may lose as much as $1.9 billion in pay because of the tournament.  This loss in productivity comes in the forms of absenteeism, employees wasting internet bandwidth on watching games, and employees becoming distracted while at work.

To offset this issue, many companies have actually tried co-opting the excitement over the tournament in order to funnel it into still-tangible results. For example, one company, Headwaters MB, threw a barbecue and invited local business leaders to improved morale and develop contacts and potential clients. Not all businesses are able to leverage the tournament to help productivity, but many have at least acknowledged its effects on their employees’ work output.

Conclusion

March Madness is a great time for sports fans across the nation. Not only do they get inundated with almost non-stop action, but they can also form bonds over brackets and friendly rivalries. However, behind all the glory and triumph is a seedier, more practical side to the tournament. This side is concerned with the vast amount of money the tournament generates.

This money is generated by many legitimate means but also through gambling and illegal betting. Businesses also have to suffer losses in productivity as employees find their attention drift from their work to the tournament. On top of all of this is the question of the athlete’s role in the moneymaking. The amateur basketball players generate massive sums but aren’t able to make money for themselves unless they end up playing professionally. While the best approach to the issue remains hotly debated, several court cases and legal actions have attempted to change the status quo.

Resources

ESPN: 2016 NCAA Tournament Schedule

History: March Madness is born

Bracketography: The Tournament Over Time

Encyclopedia Britannica: National Collegiate Athletic Association

The Economist: Amateurism in Sports

CBS Sports: Schools Can Give Out 4-year Athletic Scholarships, but Many Don’t

Law Street Media: The Battle in College Sports: Northwestern Football and Unions

Fortune: Guess how Much Money Employers Lose during March Madness

ESPN: 68-team Tournament Approved

ABC News: Into the Pool: NCAA Tourney Betting Booms

Yahoo Finance: March Madness: The $1.5b behind the NCAA tournament

IBT: March Madness 2015: Getting To The NCAA Finals Costs A Lot, But The Rewards For Most Are Slim

Go Banking Rates: Betting on March Madness and NCAA Brackets Could Get You in Legal Trouble

Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.: It’s March Madness: This Year’s Madness Could Cost 1.9B

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The NCAA Tournament: The Method behind the Madness appeared first on Law Street.

Denizens of San Francisco may have noticed something weird this week–a bunch of uncomfortably confrontational Airbnb ads. The ads gave the city condescending suggestions about what it could do with the $12 million it paid in taxes. Unfortunately, the billboards were incredibly poorly received.

Airbnb issues apology after tone-deaf ads pop up in San Francisco https://t.co/lKdMLfP5c1 pic.twitter.com/YQsEmxsLxF

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2015

I feel like the Airbnb advertising team has read about San Francisco but never actually lived here. pic.twitter.com/nICrqpRJsQ — rude moon (@skrzkrk) October 21, 2015

Airbnb put up these ads all over San Francisco bus shelters and billboards: https://t.co/Ldc47nzoVG pic.twitter.com/QqH7V9xbR3

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 23, 2015

How #Airbnb’s passive-aggressive ads backfired in San Francisco: https://t.co/MbzQZul4Y2pic.twitter.com/H8wfkXPKmh — New York Magazine (@NYMag) October 22, 2015

Currently, Airbnb is waging a battle against a proposed initiative in San Francisco, where it is headquartered. The initiative, Proposition F, will place new restrictions on landlords who offer short term rentals–exactly Airbnb’s business model. Voters will have the opportunity to vote on the initiative on November 3. Airbnb has fought rabidly against the proposal, spending more than $8 million to rally against it.

In that light, the ad campaign came across as bratty and disingenuous, at best. While the point was clearly intended to be that Airbnb is good for San Francisco, and brings in a lot of tax revenue, it came across as rudely criticizing the city for not spending enough money on public works and whining about the taxes levied against the company. Many also pointed out that Airbnb shouldn’t be giving itself a round of applause just for following the law and paying its taxes.  After the social media backlash, Airbnb apologized and took down the ads. The company also issued the following statement via Twitter: 

We apologize for Wednesday’s SF ads. They displayed poor judgment and do not live up to the values and humanity of our global community. — Airbnb (@Airbnb) October 22, 2015

Given that Airbnb is currently trying to garner goodwill in San Francisco prior to the Proposition F vote, this doesn’t look good for the short-term rental giant. While Airbnb is growing like crazy, its hometown may be passing some restrictive new provisions come election day this year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airbnb Takes Down Passive-Aggressive Ads in San Francisco appeared first on Law Street.

Periscope, a new live-streaming application, was launched less than a month ago, but it’s already making headlines with celebrities and ordinary people alike broadcasting their daily activities and conversing in real time. Live streaming is not a novel concept, but it might be the next big thing in the social media world. As people are ready to embrace this new way of interacting, “periscoping” may soon become a daily activity for many people across the globe. Read on to learn more about Periscope and what live-streaming applications can bring to the table.

What is Periscope?

Periscope is part of the next generation of social media applications that are based on real-time interactions. Acquired by Twitter for nearly $100 million and launched on March 26, 2015, the tool seems to be on the rise.

How was Periscope created? 

Periscope started two years ago when CEO and co-founder Kayvon Beykpour was traveling to Istanbul, Turkey. The protests in Taksim Square, near the hotel in which Beykpour was supposed to stay, became violent; however he couldn’t find any meaningful information on the web about the extent of that violence. Thus, the idea for Periscope was born. He had an urgent need to see the protests in real time, but there was no social platform to do so. Periscope has already demonstrated its abilities to capture events in real time, including live streaming protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and capturing the fires in San Francisco’s Mission District and New York’s Lower East Side.

How does Periscope work?

Periscope is an IOS application that can live stream what you see at any given moment. It can essentially broadcast your every move if you wish. People are already using it in a variety of ways, including artistically, conducting Q&As, walking around a city, talking, or just showcasing their everyday activities. The app also has a way to interact with those who are watching, all in real time. Viewers can choose to ask questions or leave comments that are shown through a trace of messages on the screen, like a live feed. Engagement can also be demonstrated through hearts that viewers can create by tapping the screen as many times as they like. This feature shows viewers’ level of engagement and interest–the more hearts that are tapped, the stronger the viewers’ levels of satisfaction and excitement are.

Unlike other live-streaming apps, Periscope lets you save your broadcasts for a certain period of time, which enables viewers to play back what they’ve already seen. The app also allows viewers to invite their followers to watch a live steam together.

Some users of Periscope report a need for certain technical updates, such as better search features, better browsing, and a better notification system. The developers have already fixed the issue of the “zoomable map” that could pinpoint a person’s location when live streaming, and are continuing to work on other improvements.

Watch the video below to learn more about Periscope from BeyKpour who speaks about his idea and the app’s capabilities.

Is Periscope the first live-streaming app? 

All in all, progressive technological advances constantly change the world of social media interactions and online communication. Facebook was launched in 2004 and forever changed the way people communicate online. Twitter followed in 2006. Both companies have continued to expand by acquiring photo and video-oriented social media platforms; Facebook acquired Instagram, while Twitter bought Vine. Now, new advances are under way and live-streaming applications may be the next big thing.

History of Live-Streaming Apps

Periscope is not the first application to allow users to live stream their experiences. Live streaming has been around since the 1990s when video recording and instant messaging became the big thing. The reason why Periscope is making  waves right now is because live streaming has moved into the mainstream, and people are more comfortable revealing information about themselves.

Even before the idea of Periscope was born there were an abundance of applications that could be described as under the live-streaming umbrella. UStream was founded in 2007 and provides free video-streaming services as well as paid ProBroadcasting options. YouNow, launched in 2011, allows live broadcasting. Justin.TV has been around for several years and just recently was renamed Twitch Interactive, a new platform to broadcast video games or any gaming-related content. Livestream is another app that lets users broadcast and watch live events.

Meerkat

Meerkat is a live-streaming application that was launched on February 27, 2015–one month prior to Periscope. In this regard, Meerkat can be considered the first “new generation” live-streaming app. The application really made its debut last month at SXSW in Austin, Texas. A number of performers were “meerkating,” aka live-streaming their shows, which greatly promoted the app. Meerkat is a real competitor of Periscope as both apps are brand new, well designed, and easy to use. Unlike Periscope, however, Meerkat doesn’t provide an option to save broadcasts–all of its live streams are instant and cannot be replayed.

Watch the video below to learn more about Meerkat from its founder, Ben Ruben.

What are the concerns with using live-streaming apps?

Live streaming applications such as Periscope and Meerkat raise certain concerns, including the infringement of privacy, intellectual property rights, and harassment and cyber bullying.

Infringement of Privacy

Clearly, live streaming can invade peoples’ privacy. If you are in a public space, anybody can live stream you, revealing your activities and location. The fact that one may not wish to be live streamed is irrelevant as there are no real remedies for it. Generally, when people are in public places they don’t expect privacy, but with live streaming, the invasion of privacy becomes more pervasive and inescapable. People can be streamed without their permission or knowledge.

Celebrities and politicians have even greater privacy concerns, as Periscope can provide users with the instant ability to live stream public figures if spotted on the street or in any other public place. It could completely transform the way famous people maintain their images and market themselves.

Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights generally protect people’s creations, whether they are in the form of music, design, photography, performance, or any other artistic expression. Intellectual property rights include trademark and copyright laws.

Live streaming is an immediate recording of something that is happening at any given moment, and therefore doesn’t require downloads or saving a copy of one’s broadcast. This leads to confusion as to how to apply existing copyright laws to the new generation of apps that can live stream certain content. In their terms of use, both Meerkat and Periscope state that users are prohibited from exploiting third-party copyrights and trademarks in their live recordings. In addition, under United States copyright laws, it’s illegal to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder.

As of now, live streaming is subject to the same laws that protect any copyrighted video, song, or photographic content. If one live streams, he distributes the content of his broadcast to an unknown amount of users and reproduces it at the same time. This can potentially infringe on artists’, publishers’, and labels’ copyrights if the content is copyrighted on the first place.

Simply put, if you live stream at a concert or sporting event, you could violate copyright laws, public performance laws, and exclusive rights of broadcasting stations to live stream an event. Most of the time concert venues and sport leagues clearly state on admission tickets their policies regarding video recording or streaming of the event. Not only can this violate the right of the artist to solely profit from her performance, but in the case of sporting events, can infringe on intellectual property rights of leagues and pay-per-view (PPV) producers. In addition, major television providers spend millions of dollars to obtain exclusive rights to broadcast games and other major events. Record labels’ performance rights can be easily infringed as well by live streaming sound recordings at shows.

It’s possible that live streaming performances and sporting events can also violate reproduction and distribution rights of copyright holders. As Periscope archives users’ live streams for 24 hours, it can potentially infringe on reproduction rights if the saved content is considered intellectual property.

Harassment and Cyberbullying

Using social media can perpetuate harassment and bullying. Generally, every social media platform has rules and protocols that prohibit pornographic or overly sexual content, as well as content that can incite violent, illegal, or dangerous activities. Periscope is not an exception–its community guidelines are crafted to prevent sexual comments and online harassment of any sort. However, the new app is still struggling with enforcing these rules as its instant messages are bursting with sexually explicit communications. It was reported that many female users have been sexually harassed while live streaming.

As Periscope exposes more intimate moments of people’s lives, the dangers of using this technology may become greater than those of other social media. The difficulty can be seen in its live feed, which vanishes in a matter of seconds–how can this dissipating content be reviewed? Private broadcasting settings are another worry as those can appeal to people who operate sex cameras or conduct other illegal activities.

Periscope is a very new app so there are expectations for future updates and technical improvements. The company has acknowledged the need to find a better solution for moderating users’ content, and is working now on a new feature that will allow for the easy and instant blockage of undesirable users.

What changes can live-streaming apps bring to our lives?

With live-streaming applications on millions of smartphones around the globe, changes in media coverage, politics, and advertising are imminent. But the biggest change may be manifested in a completely new kind of online interaction. With Periscope and other live-streaming applications, it will be easier to reconnect with families, and share happy moments such as weddings, birthdays, and graduations all in real time.

Live streaming can revolutionize news reporting by giving media outlets the opportunity to produce real-time news. At the same time, live streaming will create challenges for reporters as events and stories unfold instantly, journalists will have to adapt to the ever-changing dynamics of live-streaming reporting.

The advertising industry will greatly benefit from live-streaming apps, as well as experience difficulties in using such apps for marketing purposes. Live streaming can bring brands closer to customers, provide unbiased and instant feedback about products, and help to promote transparency in companies’ practices. On the other hand, brands that decide to live stream for the purposes of promoting their products may be overwhelmed by the amount of people they will need to alert about their live-broadcasting. Companies will need to make sure that every person featured in live streaming intended for commercial purposes has signed a release, otherwise the brand can be sued for violating personal rights.

The world of politics is about to change, too. Political campaigns can be live streamed, providing instant access to candidates’ everyday activities and all sorts of political events. Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul are already using Meerkat and Periscope to live stream their political endeavors. Some financial and structural constraints of political campaigns may be diminished as live streaming is a free and easy-to-use platform that provides instant access to millions of voters.

Conclusion

Humanity seemingly has no other choice but to embrace new technology and welcome a new generation of social media apps based on live streaming. But as technology evolves so should our laws. There is an urgent need to rethink and reevaluate current laws pertaining to intellectual property rights and synchronize them with technological advances. There is also a need to create better ways to protect individuals from bullying and women from sexual harassment on the web. Media outlets, record labels, and sports leagues should also embrace new technologies. Consumers should be ready for a closer engagement with brands. Meerkat may have started the revolution, but Periscope made a mind-blowing breakthrough. We’ll have to wait and see what’s next when it comes to live streaming.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Copyright Office: Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act, and Illegal Streaming

Additional

Australian Business Review: Periscope: Will the Live-Streaming App Be the Next Big Thing?

ABC News: Periscope, Meerkat, YouNow: Which Live Streaming App is Right For You

BBC News: Periscope: Anglesey Man Behind Video Streaming App

Billboard: The Meerkat Minefield: Legal Issues With Live-Streaming Apps

CBS: Periscope, Meerkat Threaten Multi-Billion Dollar Sports Broadcast Copyrights

Columbia Journalism Review: How Social Media Livestreams Will Impact Political Journalism

Customer Think: As Twitter Acquires Periscope, Live Video Streaming Apps Will Transform Social Media Marketing in the Second Half of 2015

DailyMail: New Live Streaming App Periscope is Already on Its Way to Becoming a Parent’s Worst Nightmare

Fast Company: Streaming Video on Periscope Just Got Way Less Creepy

Graham Cluley: Periscope Raises Privacy Concerns

Guardian: Periscope Up! Twitter’s Live-streaming App is Exciting Us, But Here’s How it Could Be Better

Huffington Post: Why You Should Care About Periscope, Twitter’s New Live-Streaming App

Huffington Post: What Does Periscope’s Live Mobile Streaming Mean to Media?

IT Business: Up Periscope, Down Privacy? Twitter’s Live Streaming Service Bound to Cause Controversy

Kerry O’Shea Gorgone: Meerkat, Periscope, Privacy and the Law: Is Live-Streaming Video Legal?

Legal Zoom: Copyright Law on Streaming PPV Events

MIT Technology Review: Broadcast Every Little Drama

New York Business Journal: Down Periscope: MLB  Set to Crack Down on Live Streaming From the Bleacher

The New York Times: As Twitter Introduces Periscope, Tech Titans Bet on Live Streaming Video

Providence Journal: So Social: Meerkat, Periscope Make it Easy to Live Stream From iPhone

Verge: Periscope, Twitter’s Answer to Meerkat-Style Live Streaming, is Now Available

Wired: Twitter’s Periscope App Lets You Livestream Your World

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Periscope & Meerkat: Live Streaming is the Latest Social Media Development appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, ello. As someone who grew up in the generation of social networks, it’s quite remarkable to see how in a little less than a decade we’ve come almost full circle. In the early 2000s, social networks revolutionized the ways in which we communicated. But back to the full circle part — these social networks, particularly Facebook, have become such a norm that there’s plenty of people who dislike the commercialization, lack of creativity, and ubiquitousness of Facebook. In that context, a new social network has joined the scene, trying to capitalize on some of Facebook’s disappointed customer base. It’s called “Ello” and it appears to have a lot of potential.

Ello’s tagline appears to be “Simple, Beautiful, and Ad-Free.” The interface is simple, as vintage as one can go in a world where the internet is still too young to be truly vintage. Ello’s “About Us” section spells out what it’s for. Important priorities appear to include that Ello is invite-only, it does not contain ads, it’s simple and uncluttered, and it does not sell user information. As Ello puts it:

Virtually every other social network is run by advertisers. Behind the scenes they employ armies of ad salesmen and data miners to record every move you make. Data about you is then auctioned off to advertisers and data brokers. You’re the product that’s being bought and sold.

Recently, Ello took another step further. It is now what’s called a “Public Benefit Corporation.” That means that they cannot:

1. Sell user-specific data to a third party;
2. Enter into an agreement to display paid advertising on behalf of a third party; and
3. In the event of an acquisition or asset transfer, the Company shall require any acquiring entity to adopt these requirements with respect to the operation of Ello or its assets.

So, how will Ello make money? If it doesn’t have advertisers, and it doesn’t sell data, how is it able to profit? As idealistic and great as Ello sounds, the people who created it can’t just bankrupt themselves in the name of a more ethical social network.

Well, right now it apparently has a few venture capitalists behind it, which will keep the company flush while it gets off the ground. According to Ello, it’s going to have people pay for more premium services. Ello compared it to an iPhone — you buy an iPhone and then you customize it the way you want. You can purchase apps and other features to customize the iPhone to be exactly what you want.

The big question is will people take the same approach to Ello? Millennials love customization, to be sure, but we’re also incredibly cheap. If we have the option for a free social network like Facebook, will anyone pay a little more for the ad-free experience of Ello? Maybe, especially when the network is new and hip, but once it goes the route of Facebook and attracts pretty much the entire world, will people be willing to fork up the dough?

Ello is a tantalizing concept — an anti-Facebook. But I just don’t know if people are frustrated enough with Facebook to need its social media foil yet, especially if it’s going to cost them.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ello, Goodbye? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, online retailer Modcloth became the first company to take the Heroes of Advertising Pledge “to do [its] best not to change the shape, size, proportion, color and/or remove/enhance the physical features, of the people in [its] ads in post-production.” If for some reason it does alter any images on its site, Modcloth must note that the image is not “real.” The pledge was created by the Brave Girls Alliance, an organization that also proposed the Truth in Advertising Act of 2014, asking Congress to regulate the use of Photoshop in advertising.

Modcloth is notorious for offering clothing for everyone, featuring many plus-size models on its site. The Hero of Advertising Pledge is a huge step in the right direction for fashion advertising. Not only will it help to prevent weird Photoshop fails, but it could also present a more realistic image to consumers, specifically young girls whose body images could be affected by them.

The media has always been the number one scapegoat for body image issues in children and adults alike. Underweight models in advertisements have set a standard for what the consumers think they must look like in order to wear the clothes sold in stores. Companies like Modcloth are trying to break the standard by using “real people” as models. Earlier this year American Eagle Outfitters’ lingerie store, Aerie released a campaign in which all images were completely un-retouched with the slogan “The real you is sexy.”

But exactly how effective are ads with “real” models at selling clothes? While some companies may get too Photoshop-happy, a published ad shouldn’t be sloppy or it could fail to properly grab the consumer’s attention. There haven’t been any studies yet on how “real” ads influence a store’s sales, although consumers do claim they want to see more relatable-looking people in clothing ads.

Perhaps advertisers should establish a medium when it comes to Photoshopping so that models don’t end up missing limbs, but also look presentable and appropriate for the company they represent. The Hero of Advertising Pledge does allow for some use of Photoshop when it comes to a flyaway hair or concealing a tattoo, but it can be tricky to establish a limit on how much is too much Photoshop and how much is too little.

An awkwardly Photoshopped ad by Ann Taylor LOFT. LOFT justified the alteration by claiming they were trying to conceal the model’s tattoo. Courtesy of Buzzfeed.

Advertisers can only do so much when it comes to influencing consumers’ body images. Eating disorders stem from various other factors such as genetics and trauma, but can be triggered by a suggestive ad. If ads that promote rape culture are censored, it makes sense to also limit ads that could affect someone suffering from an eating disorder in the same way they could affect a victim of sexual abuse. It is tricky, however, to determine what could actually trigger consumers with eating disorders as their perception of what is “normal” is skewed.

Model casting could also be an issue when striving to create “real” ads because companies may not want to waste time and money retouching a model’s image, which is why tall and thin models are usually cast in the first place. How do companies define what is too thin? Ultimately, it is up to the company to determine what kinds of bodies they want to represent their brand. But what is going to stop them from sticking with unhealthy or underweight models? Overweight models can also be just as triggering to people with eating disorders as thin ones.

While many fashion ads may seem misleading, such a notion is technically the point of advertising to begin with. Restaurants rarely use “real” images of the food they actually serve and the same idea can apply to clothing ads. The consumer is not going to look exactly like the model does in a garment because everyone’s body is different. Also, advertisements are meant to create a somewhat idealistic image in order to grab a consumer’s attention and successfully sell a product. Adult consumers, unlike children, usually have the common sense to tell what is real and what is not.

When it comes to using people in advertisements, however, it is difficult to determine what is ethical. Photoshopping a model into oblivion is no more effective than a sloppily unedited ad. Advertisers need to establish an appropriate medium for altering images, and while Congress can provide a guide as to how much is too much, it is ultimately up to the company to decide what kind of image it wants to present.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Congress Regulate What a “Real” Ad is? appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to marketing, they say that sex sells. That may have been true ten years ago when retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, and United States of Benetton ruled the fashion scene. But lately the industry seems to be erring on the safe side in advertising. Maybe this is why controversial photographers like Dov Charney and Terry Richardson have recently gotten the boot. Maybe it’s a movement in feminism. But maybe it’s just censorship.

The sexualized female figure has shocked the public since the Impressionist Era. The censorship of the female nipple is nothing new; however, as in art, it’s this same kind of scandal that often gives companies the most attention, which is basically the point of advertising. The more people are talking about a company, the more money they make. There is no such thing as bad press. So why are so many ads playing it safe these days?

One reason for this could be that companies just don’t want to bother with all the hassle. If an ad is too controversial, it risks getting banned in some countries. For example, back in 2011 the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) seemed to read a little too much into Dakota Fanning’s ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, resulting in a ban throughout Great Britain. The ad features Fanning with the perfume bottle, which includes a large rubber rose on the cap, between her legs. At the time the ad ran, Fanning was only 17 so it upset people to see a minor, whom the ASA claimed looked under the age of 16, staring in such a “provocative” ad.

Marc Jacobs, however, seems hardly controversial compared to other retailers such as Benetton and Italian label Sisley. These companies are notorious for making cheap shots when it comes to advertising. For these two, the more scandalous, the better: from a kissing nun and priest to a man dying of AIDS to “fashion junkies” snorting a dress. Despite their tendencies to upset the public, these ads have been successful in garnering attention. In such cases, these companies value shock factor over just putting out a pretty ad.

Benetton has become tamer since photographer Oliver Toscani stopped working with the company in 2000. Their recent Unhate campaign featuring feuding world leaders kissing, like President Obama, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Pope Benedict XVI , and Egyptian leader Grand Sheikh Ahmed el Tayeb, led to the Vatican suing back in 2011.

Another reason ads may have tamed down is that companies now do most of their marketing through social media. Sites like Facebook and Instagram are heavily regulated when it comes to what they determine is appropriate for such a large and diverse audience. Most pictures featuring the female nipple are promptly removed from these sites within hours of posting. Therefore, if an ad is considered too inappropriate, the company risks losing a large amount of consumers.

Although sometimes they make more than one version of an ad through strategic cropping, companies, especially smaller ones that can’t afford it, may not want to bother paying for multiple versions of the same campaign. Social media also allows for free advertising for all kinds of companies and can be shared to reach consumers who may not normally pay attention to a specific brand. While Benetton’s ads certainly have a tendency to go viral, they risk running into potential legal troubles on the web. If an ad ends up on a site with certain regulations, the company could be held accountable.

Online advertising has presented endless opportunities for giving companies exposure but at the same time, advertising has also never been more censored. There are few laws to regulate what is appropriate and what is not online, so it is often up to the websites themselves to make the regulations. Many sites do not want to face the legal complications involved with featuring controversial images, which in turn has led advertisers to not even bother with anything controversial in the first place.

While Benetton may not offer anything groundbreaking or artistically ingenious in its ads, the company is known for opening up a conversation about greater issues such as HIV/AIDS, homophobia, and racism. Lately however, there is not much conversation going on regarding these kinds of ads, just a bunch of pretty models in pretty clothes. While the point of fashion advertising is to sell clothes, sometimes the less clothing a model wears, the more intrigued a consumer may be to find out what kind of product the ad is selling. The use of accessories in fashion ads also creates a more timeless image, which is bound to be remembered and used for decades.

Perhaps advertisers should start taking cues from the Impressionists again, instead of playing it safe. The Impressionists lucked out though, because there was no ASA or Facebook back then to stop them from creating anything interesting.

Of course full-on nudity isn’t the only way to intrigue an audience with sex appeal. Let us not forget the classic Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein ads, who was just 15 at the time.

Nothing, not even the ASA could get between her and her Calvins.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Buzzfeed]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Censorship in Fashion: Where Did All the Controversial Ads Go? appeared first on Law Street.

“You may not know them, but data brokers know you,” Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairwoman Edith Ramirez said at the release of an FTC report about the data broker industry. Data brokers know where you live, what you buy, what medical conditions you have, your background, interests, and even the names of your kids. It sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, so it is no wonder most Americans have no idea the thriving market for their personal information even exists. Here’s everything you need to know about how data brokers collect your information, what it is used for, and what protection you have.

What are data brokers?

Data brokers are companies that compile and resell or share the personal data of consumers. The FTC released a report on May 27, 2014 examining nine companies in the industry: Acxiom, CoreLogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf and Recorded Future. These companies derive a whopping $426 million in annual revenue from their products.

The information set held by these companies is massive. Acxiom estimates it holds roughly 1,500 pieces of data per consumer. Another broker dwarfs Acxiom with 3,000 data points for nearly every U.S. consumer. One broker is said to maintain about 700 billion aggregated data elements and adds more than 3 billion pieces of data each month. Another database has information on 1.4 billion consumer transactions alone, such as credit card purchases. Watch an in-depth look at data brokers by 60 Minutes below.

Where do data brokers find their information?

Contentions with the data broker industry arise from the fact that information gleaned does not come directly from consumers. Data brokers garner a lot of information from publicly available sites. A site relaying U.S. Census data can provide information regarding local demographics and real estate value. These firms get additional information from voter records, tax records, court records, mortgages and property information, driving records, and numerous other avenues. Companies can scour social media sites, such as LinkedIn, for any publicly-available information. Data brokers also gain a lot of information from card loyalty programs, credit cards, and advertising agencies that may follow a user’s online activities. If you recently bought a subscription to Forbes Magazine or purchased a new dress from a catalog sent to your home, these data brokers will know. By compiling all this information, brokers begin to paint a profile of you, including your age, race, income, social security number, religion, political affiliation, criminal history, movie preferences, gun-ownership, gym membership, and hobbies.

What is this data used for?

Individual data points are compiled to form a profile of potential consumers who can then be targeted for specific products. The information allows companies to more accurately target consumers for advertising campaigns and gain information about consumer preferences. The FTC report shows that data brokers usually package data into two forms:

1. Data elements: Age, family, and interests.
2. Data segments: Compilation of interests used to to create a list of people with similar characteristics. Here are some examples of these list segments: “African-American Professional;” “Allergy Sufferer;” “Bible Lifestyle;” “Biker/Hell’s Angels;” “Plus-Size Apparel;” “Twitter User with 250+ friends.” Other categories include people with high cholesterol or those interested in novelty Elvis items.

Data brokers then use this information to create various products in three different categories:

1. Marketing: This includes mail, email, telemarketing, mobile, and TV campaigns. To target consumers, marketers use a process called “onboarding.” Onboarding allows marketers to load offline information, such as magazine subscriptions or store loyalty cards, into cookies that digital advertisers use to target consumers. Cookies are stored in a computer’s browser and allow advertisers to promote their products on numerous Internet services.
2. Risk Mitigation: This includes identity verification. These products use analytics to help banks comply with “know your customer” identity verification requirements under the USA Patriot Act. Products also include fraud detection to track patterns of attempted fraud. For instance, these products can track how long an email address has been used or whether a delivery address matches a listed consumer.
3. People Search: This includes products generally intended for use by individuals. Products can search for someone’s criminal record, ancestry, phone number, telephone history, or social media information. Most come in the form of fee-based search products.

Does the data make our lives easier?

Many people would agree that products that help to verify one’s identity are a good thing. Companies that can link consumer purchases to personal information like an address, phone number, and email drastically reduce chances of fraud. Some also see personalized advertising as a good thing. Say you are a senior citizen. Rather than scrolling through the Internet and seeing ads for baby strollers or discounted student loans, you might see ads for healthcare services. Targeted advertising means you receive information and discounts for things you actually use instead of products with no relevance to your life. Ideally the more information data brokers have about you, the more they can target your individual tastes. While each individual piece of data has little benefit, the aggregation of this data by data brokers is immensely beneficial to companies doing market research to improve and tailor their products.

How are data brokers changing political campaigns?

The use of personal data is not limited to what you buy. In the 2012 elections, campaigns contracted with political data brokers to match voting records with cookies on computers. Voter registration lists have long been used to target voters. Combined with more information, these lists now take a powerful form in the digital arena. Political microtargeting allows campaigns to utilize information from data brokers to deliver a specific message to a target demographic. Data can help campaigns decide which voters are most likely to respond to a specific ad or which groups need to be targeted with a specific message. Candidates can target registered Democrat or Republican voters with online ads and can even target based on how much the individual has donated to campaigns before.

President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign was among the first to use big data to its advantage. The 2012 team assembled an analytics department five times the size of that in its 2008 campaign. Some insights into the use of data in Obama’s 2012 campaign:

• As TIME describes, the team discovered that East Coast women between 40 and 50 were not donating as much as hoped. This demographic was the most likely to hand over cash for the chance to dine with a gravitational celebrity. The campaign’s solution? A fundraising drive with the prize being a dinner with Sarah Jessica Parker.
• The campaign used data to predict how much money they would get from each fundraising email. They also used demographics to determine which groups would be most responsive to an email signed by either Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, or Joe Biden.
• The campaign bought data from brokers regarding the television-viewing habits of Ohioans. The campaign was able to combine lists of voters with lists of cable subscribers and then coordinate the information of watching habits. Using this information, they targeted campaign ads to specific demographics at the exact time these niche voters were watching TV. This led to the campaign buying airtime in shows like Sons of Anarchy and the Walking Dead rather than traditional news programming. Watch for more on the use of big data during Obama’s reelection campaign below.

Little information is disclosed on just how much data campaigns can access. Inevitably the collection and effective use of data will play a huge role in the 2016 presidential election, but not all consumers are happy with that. The regulation of the use of data for political purposes raises questions of free speech and privacy. Others claim microtargeting actually offers more privacy, since the data does not include names or physical mailing addresses. It may be hard, however, for consumers to opt out of political advertising. Even lists like the National Do Not Call registry have exceptions for political campaign calls. According to a study by the University of Pennsylvania, 86 percent of Americans said they did not want political advertising tailored to their interests.

What are the problems with data brokers?

There is a certain “creepiness” factor to data collection without consumer consent. Target tried to market products to new parents by identifying them even before the baby was born. Data showed that pregnant women purchased products like cocoa butter and calcium tablets. Target began sending targeted mail to these women. But instead of finding it helpful, the women found the fact that Target knew they were pregnant to be unnerving.

Others worry about the effects of outdated data. Consumers have little access to immediately change what information that brokers have on them, such as an address change or marriage. This means people could potentially be prevented from making a purchase solely based on outdated information. Outdated information becomes more offensive when the deceased remain on data broker lists and continue to receive offers in the mail. Some women revealed stories of experiencing a miscarriage yet continuing to receive insensitive mailings from Gerber and American Baby Magazine.

Companies that have such specific information about segments of consumers may take advantage from the data. An example from the FTC looks at the case of a consumer labeled to be a biker enthusiast. This person might get more coupons for motorcycles and gear, but they could also see higher insurance rates if companies use this information to conclude this individual engages in risky behavior. Watch a Congressional hearing on the industry’s issues below.

An Acxiom presentation to the Consumer Marketing Organization in 2013 indicates further issues with potential discrimination. Acxiom placed customers into “customer value segments.” Data showed that while the top 30 percent of customers add 500 percent of value, the bottom 20 percent actually cost 400 percent of value. The bottom 20 percent call customer service numerous times and cost the company in returns. The company would be better off ignoring these customers altogether, and data brokers can help companies to identify these costly customers. These high-cost customers could then face higher prices or poor service without even being aware they are discriminated against.

Do people have any protection?

The problem most people have with the collection of data is that they have no say in it. They are not aware when information is being collected, nor are they in control of what it is used for or if it is correct. The resale and illegal use of the data is prohibited. Data brokers also suppress protected lists such as phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.

Some data brokers do try to protect consumers. Some voluntarily remove information regarding children and teens from their data. Others provide ways to edit and review what data the broker has on you. Acxiom uses aboutthedata.com for this very purpose. Epsilon allows consumers to review information, but reviewing the information costs $5 and requests can only be made by postal mail. Trying to review information collected by every broker is extremely time consuming. Watch for more on how to protect yourself below.

No laws require brokers to maintain the privacy of consumer data unless it is used for prohibited purposes. Federal law protects the confidentiality of medical records. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) restricts the search of information when determining eligibility for employment, credit, or housing; however, most data does not fall under the scope of FCRA.

What is the FTC pushing for?

The FTC report recognizes the immense value of data brokers to both companies and consumers; however, the FTC has offered the following recommendations to improve the industry and bolster consumer protection:

• Create a central database where consumers can see what information about them was collected. The database should also allow consumers to opt out from the data collection.
• Require brokers to list their data sources.
• Increase industry visibility and consumer awareness.
• Comprehensive legislation to prevent the discriminatory use of data. For instance, some categories infer sensitive statistics. “Metro Parents” are single parents primarily high school-educated handling the stresses of urban life on a small budget. “Timeless Traditions” are immigrants who speak some English but generally prefer Spanish.
• Adopt a series of best practices, including better protection for minors, improving data security, preventing unlawful discrimination, and restricting collection to only needed data.

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and other groups attacked the FTC report. In an interview with the Washington Post, Stuart Ingis of the DMA said, “You’d think if there was a real problem, they’d be able to talk about something other than potential” abuses.

The data broker lobby is very powerful. Senators John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Edward Markey (D-MA) led the regulatory push by proposing the DATA bill on February 12, 2014, requiring data brokers to be transparent about the information they collect. But considering the fact that political campaigns benefit from data broker information when targeting voters, it is unlikely there will be new legislation on data brokers in the near future. In the meantime, expect data brokers to know much more about you than you know about them.

Resources

Primary

FTC: Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability

Ed Markey: Markey, Rockefeller Introduce Data Broker Bill

White House: Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values

Senate: A Review of the Data Broker Industry

Additional

Yahoo: FTC Wants More Transparency for Data Brokers

Data Privacy Minitor: FTC Report Seeks Congressional Review

Privacy and Security Law Blog: “Getting to Know You, Getting to Know All About You”

Washington Post: Brokers Use Billions of Data Points to Profile Americans

ProPublica: Everything We Know About What Data Brokers Know About You

Slate: What Do Data Brokers Know About Me?

CNN: Why Big Companies Buy, Sell Your Data

New York Books: How Your Data are Being Deeply Mined

Pulitzer Center: Consumer Data Privacy in Politics

Time: Inside the Secret World of the Data Crunchers Who Helped Obama Win

ProPublica: Everything We Know So Far About Obama’s Big Data Operation

AdWeek: Confessions of a Data Broker

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Big Business of Big Data appeared first on Law Street.

On December 30, 2013, a class action suit was filed against Facebook for its use of members’ private data. The lawsuit is led by two Facebook users named Michael Hurley and Matthew Campbell, though it purports to represent all Facebook users within the United States.

In 2010, Facebook unveiled a feature that allowed members to send private messages controlled completely by the users. They stressed the privacy features that this new messaging feature allowed. Hypothetically, those messages were just supposed to be viewable by the sender and recipient(s) of the message. Neither Facebook nor any third-party were supposed to have access to the messages.

The suit alleges that this was false. According to an inspection by “independent security researchers” last year, Facebook has been scanning the contents of those messages to use for marketing and other purposes. The suit alleges two main ways in which Facebook has been doing so. The first is when a user sends a private message with a link. For example, suppose someone sent you an article on lawstreetmedia.com, The link will register with Facebook, and the site will follow it to see to where it leads. If it is a site that has a Facebook page, as many do, Facebook registers that as a “like” on that company’s public page. That has a number of troubling implications. For example, I know I’ve definitely sent an article link to a friend before because I disagreed with the article. I definitely wouldn’t want a like to register on that site’s Facebook page as a result. It also means that it would be possible to fabricate likes–a company could make sure its page got linked in messages a lot, and likes would register as a result.

The suit also alleges that Facebook mines that sort of data sent in privates messages for use by either Facebook itself or third parties. It is then used for marketing or advertising purposes.

The suit states that Facebook’s use of private messages in such a way violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act–an electronic version of the law preventing someone from opening another person’s mail. The argument that Facebook is expected to utilize is that Facebook isn’t reading the messages–just grabbing data from them.

This isn’t the first time that Facebook has been accused of such practices. In 2012, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that Facebook does scan its messages for keywords related to criminal behavior. Google has been the focus of similar allegations. There is a silver lining to Facebook’s use of private messages, however, as they also can sometimes filter out spam or malware before an unsuspecting user opens it. An internet security expert named Graham Cluley added, “[i]f you didn’t properly scan and check links, there’s a very real risk that spam, scams, phishing attacks, and malicious URLs designed to infect recipients’ computers with malware could run rife.”

The suit is demanding an injunction for Facebook to stop its behavior. The two plaintiffs also want Facebook to pay the members of the suit $100 a day for each violation, or $10,000. Given that the suit claims to include all American Facebook users who have had their private messages used in such a way, I would assume that’s a lot of people and could equal a pretty hefty sum.

Honestly, I wasn’t too surprised that Facebook used data in such a way. I pretty much assume that sites track activity always–but maybe I’m just a cynic. One of the best indicators for how this lawsuit will go for Facebook may come from the similar pending lawsuit involving Google. This September it was ruled that the suit would go forward–potentially becoming a big problem for Google. I’m sure we’ll see suits from other social media and communication sites in the months and years to come. Google and Facebook are just the beginning.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean MacEntee via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Suit Alleges Privacy Violations appeared first on Law Street.

The fight over how websites respond to the “do-not-track” signal continues as the Tracking Protection Working Group rejected the most recent proposal made by the ad industry on July 15.  The end-of-July deadline for President Obama’s goal to create a self-regulating system is approaching and little progress has been made.  The main purpose of such a system is to determine how to deal with web users’ requests to stop companies from tracking their online activity.

There is no established standard for how websites respond to such requests, which has caused many sites to simply ignore the signal altogether.  Many people argue against the self-regulation because they believe the only way to ensure compliance is for congress to legislate specific standards.  However, such laws seem to be far away, and with a recent surge in “do-not-track” requests, something needs to be done.

Online advertising is a very large business with revenue estimates around $37 billion last year alone, marking a 15 percent increase. This issue is particularly important to the industry as some estimates claim that online growth could slow down by as much as 15 percent in the next five years.  The debate between advertising companies and web browser makers continues, but a standard seems far away.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [FutUndBeidl via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Do-Not-Track” Battle Rages On appeared first on Law Street.