<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Focal PLLC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://focallaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://focallaw.com</link>
	<description>Internet, Media, and Technology Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 22:00:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Terminating an NFL Player&#8217;s Endorsement Agreement for Polemic Tweets May Be Contract Breach&#8211;Mendenhall v. Hanes</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/terminating-an-nfl-players-endorsement-agreement-for-polemic-tweets-may-be-contract-breach-mendenhall-v-hanes/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/terminating-an-nfl-players-endorsement-agreement-for-polemic-tweets-may-be-contract-breach-mendenhall-v-hanes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 22:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jacki Beem</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, 2012 WL 1230743 (M.D.N.C.; Apr. 12, 2012) This case has it all: Twitter, a pro football player, terrorism, Osama bin Laden and contract law geekiness!   Background: Rashard Mendenhall plays professional football as a running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Mendenhall entered into an endorsement contract with Hanesbrands, which owns the Champion brand. The agreement between Hanesbrands and Mendenhall had a “morals clause,” which originally said that Hanesbrands could terminate the agreement if Mendenhall was arrested, charged with, or indicted for a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. This clause was later amended to provide that Hanesbrands could terminate the agreement if, in addition to being charged with or indicted for a crime, Mendenhall: involved in any situation or occurrence . . . tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult, or offend the majority of the consuming public . . . . decision on all matters arising under shall be conclusive. Mendenhall’s Tweets: Mendenhall is an avid user of Twitter (@R_Mendenhall) and describes himself as a “Conversationalist and Professional Athlete.” In the wake... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/terminating-an-nfl-players-endorsement-agreement-for-polemic-tweets-may-be-contract-breach-mendenhall-v-hanes/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/terminating-an-nfl-players-endorsement-agreement-for-polemic-tweets-may-be-contract-breach-mendenhall-v-hanes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook &#8220;Likes&#8221; Aren&#8217;t Speech Protected By the First Amendment–Bland v. Roberts</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/facebook-likes-arent-speech-protected-by-the-first-amendment-bland-v-roberts/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/facebook-likes-arent-speech-protected-by-the-first-amendment-bland-v-roberts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 17:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jacki Beem</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; Bland v. Roberts, 2012 US Dist. Lexis 57530, 4:11cv45 (E.D. Va.; Apr. 24, 2012) Bland and his cohorts worked in the Hampton Sheriff’s Office, under B.J. Roberts. Roberts ran for re-election against Jim Adams, and the plaintiffs were lukewarm in their support of Roberts. In fact, three of the plaintiffs went so far as to “like” Adams' Facebook page. Roberts won the election, and he decided to not retain the plaintiffs. He justified the terminations on cost-cutting and budgeting grounds, but plaintiffs argued that their termination violated their First Amendment rights. The court grants Roberts’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs alleged they engaged in a variety of protected activities, such as placing a bumper sticker on one of their cars and attending an Adams-sponsored cookout, but the court says there is no evidence that Roberts was aware of these activities. The one activity that Roberts knew about was “the presence” of two of the plaintiffs on his opponent’s Facebook page. However, with respect to this activity, the court says that plaintiffs did not point to any specific statements they made on Adams’ Facebook page. One plaintiff claimed he posted a comment to Adams' page, but he... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/facebook-likes-arent-speech-protected-by-the-first-amendment-bland-v-roberts/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/05/facebook-likes-arent-speech-protected-by-the-first-amendment-bland-v-roberts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Update on the PhoneDog Twitter Account Case</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/another-update-on-the-phonedog-twitter-account-case/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/another-update-on-the-phonedog-twitter-account-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve blogged a couple of times about PhoneDog v. Kravitz, the lawsuit over a Twitter account Kravitz used while he was working for PhoneDog. The court initially declined to dismiss PhoneDog’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets or its claims for conversion. This means that the lawsuit moves forward. The court did dismiss PhoneDog’s claims for “interference with economic relationships.” PhoneDog amended its economic interference claims, and this time the court says they are sufficient. (You can access a copy of the short four page ruling here.) This doesn’t mean that PhoneDog will necessarily win, just that PhoneDog can include these claims in its lawsuit, conduct discovery around these claims, and try to argue facts around them at trial. I thought the court took a pretty lenient look at PhoneDog’s claims -- is Kravitz continuing to use a Twitter account really interfering with the economic relationship between PhoneDog and its advertisers? This seemed like a stretch. In any event, the lawsuit continues on. I’m certain it will settle sooner rather than latter. One question is, how will the parties deal with Kravitz’s followers -- which have increased dramatically in the course of the lawsuit... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/another-update-on-the-phonedog-twitter-account-case/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/another-update-on-the-phonedog-twitter-account-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vendor Fails to Form Either an Online or Paper Contract With Customers &#8212; Kwan v. Clearwire</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/vendor-fails-to-form-either-an-online-or-paper-contract-with-customers-kwan-v-clearwire/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/vendor-fails-to-form-either-an-online-or-paper-contract-with-customers-kwan-v-clearwire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kwan v. Clearwire Corp., C09-1392JLR (W.D.Wash.; Jan. 3, 2012) In a case involving Facebook, a court enforced the company’s terms of use and, based on a venue clause in Facebook’s terms, transferred a dispute from New York to California. The court delved into the distinctions between “clickwrap” and “browsewrap” agreements while eventually concluding that the plaintiff was apprised of the terms (or should have been), so there was no reason not to enforce the contract. Kwan v. Clearwire doesn’t involve strictly online terms, but Clearwire wasn’t so lucky -- it botched its terms of use. (Judging from the court’s order, it also botched its customer service efforts). End result: It can’t summarily move the dispute to arbitration and has to undergo discovery around whether its customers agreed to the terms. The court was fairly skeptical of Clearwire’s position, so its chances of success on the arbitration front don’t seem great. Background Kwan brought a lawsuit against Clearwire and collection agents for the company alleging that she was harassed in an effort to reach a Clearwire customer (which wasn’t her). Among other claims, she asserted claims under the TCPA, the Fair Debt... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/vendor-fails-to-form-either-an-online-or-paper-contract-with-customers-kwan-v-clearwire/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/02/vendor-fails-to-form-either-an-online-or-paper-contract-with-customers-kwan-v-clearwire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts Judge Concludes That ZIP Code is Personal Information</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/massachusetts-judge-concludes-that-zip-code-is-personal-information/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/massachusetts-judge-concludes-that-zip-code-is-personal-information/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many different statutes regulate the collection and use of personal information, but a key question is whether a certain category of information falls under the statute or a privacy policy’s definition of “personal information.” The California State Supreme Court concluded last year that a ZIP code qualifies as personal information under that state’s statute which regulates the collection and retention of such information by retailers. A federal court in Massachusetts recently came to the same conclusion although for different reasons. The court in California concluded that the statute in that case was enacted to prevent retailers from collecting information from customers and using it for marketing purposes. The court said that retailers could use the name and ZIP code of customers to then match them in a database and locate them. In Massachusetts, the court concluded that the Massachusetts legislature enacted the statute to protect against fraud and identity theft. Nevertheless, the court concluded that a ZIP code qualifies as personal information because the ZIP code can be used along with card or account information to effect the transfer of funds. Even though the court concluded that the statute covered... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/massachusetts-judge-concludes-that-zip-code-is-personal-information/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/massachusetts-judge-concludes-that-zip-code-is-personal-information/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Update on the PhoneDog v. @noahkravitz &#8212; The Battle Over the Employee Twitter Account</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/an-update-on-the-phonedog-v-noahkravitz-the-battle-over-the-employee-twitter-account/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/an-update-on-the-phonedog-v-noahkravitz-the-battle-over-the-employee-twitter-account/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:10:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PhoneDog v. Kravitz, No. C 11-03474 MEJ (N.D. Cal.) (Amended Complaint) (Motion to Dismiss) (PhoneDog Opposition) (Kravitz's Reply) In November, the court allowed PhoneDog’s claims against Kravitz for conversion and trade secrets to proceed. In its initial order, the court rejected PhoneDog's interference with economic advantage claim because it was muddled and didn't clearly specify what economic relationship PhoneDog alleged Kravitz allegedly interfered with. PhoneDog filed an amended complaint, clarifying its economic interference arguments (or trying to at least). Kravitz moved to dismiss the amended claims. (I've linked to the pleadings above.) PhoneDog claims that it had an economic relationship with the followers of Kravitz’s Twitter account, so Kravitz taking the account disrupted this relationship. PhoneDog also claims this affected its relationship with “existing and prospective advertisers” on PhoneDog’s website. Finally, PhoneDog argues that Kravitz interfered with its economic relationship with CNBC and Fox News by continuing to contribute to programs on these channels after he left PhoneDog. Regardless of how the court rules on the economic interference claims, the conversion and trade secrets... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/an-update-on-the-phonedog-v-noahkravitz-the-battle-over-the-employee-twitter-account/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2012/01/an-update-on-the-phonedog-v-noahkravitz-the-battle-over-the-employee-twitter-account/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hyundai&#8217;s Blogger Promotion Gets a Pass From the FTC Due in Part to its Social Media Policy</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/hyundais-blogger-promotion-gets-a-pass-from-the-ftc-due-in-part-to-its-social-media-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/hyundais-blogger-promotion-gets-a-pass-from-the-ftc-due-in-part-to-its-social-media-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1089</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I've posted on the FTC endorsement guidelines, which broadly require disclosure of relationships, and incentives provided to those who endorse products or companies. (See "FTC Cracks Down on Misleading Online Endorsements by Affiliates.") The FTC recently closed an investigation on Hyundai, whose marketing agency gave bloggers gift certificates as an incentive to "incline links to Hyundai videos in their posts and/or to comment on . . . forthcoming Super Bowl ads." You can access a copy of the FTC's closing letter here . The FTC provided two reasons for why it closed the investigation into Hyundai's promotions. 1. Hyundai did not know in advance about the incentives, which were offered by an employee of Hyundai's marketing agency. 2. Offering an incentive to post about or endorse a Hyundai product was contrary to the social media policies of both Hyundai and its marketing agency. The FTC's reliance on the social media policies of Hyundai and its marketing agency is interesting and yet another data point in favor of adopting a social media policy. The FTC's press release provides some additional details as to its rationale and guidance for companies who use social media in their marketing efforts. The FTC recommends... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/hyundais-blogger-promotion-gets-a-pass-from-the-ftc-due-in-part-to-its-social-media-policy/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/hyundais-blogger-promotion-gets-a-pass-from-the-ftc-due-in-part-to-its-social-media-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Citibank Can&#8217;t Shake Text Spam Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/citibank-cant-shake-text-spam-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/citibank-cant-shake-text-spam-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laws governing SMS spam are stringent, and marketing via text messages is among the riskiest type of marketing. If you obtain a list of phone numbers and send out text messages to these numbers, this can create liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which courts have held cover text messages, as well as phone calls. Unlike email marketing -- where if you send out a non-misleading message with valid opt-out methods and honor those opt-outs you face limited risk -- in the realm of text message marketing, the law is not so friendly to marketers. Consent has to be unequivocal in order to preempt an argument that text spam violated the TCPA. Consider a recent lawsuit involving Citibank. The plaintiff first alleged that he included his cell phone number in a Citibank credit card application. He later revised his pleading to say that he contacted Citibank "by phone" to ask about the possibility of a credit card. Citibank sent him two messages. The first said: Citibank Cards needs to talk with you regarding your recent application. Please call 866-365-8962. To Opt-Out reply STOP. The plaintiff replied "STOP" and Citibank sent a confirmation message: Per your request you will no longer receive text alerts... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/citibank-cant-shake-text-spam-lawsuit/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/12/citibank-cant-shake-text-spam-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Litigant Finds Out the Hard Way That What you Say on Facebook Will be Used Against You</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/another-litigant-finds-out-the-hard-way-that-what-you-say-on-facebook-will-be-used-against-you/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/another-litigant-finds-out-the-hard-way-that-what-you-say-on-facebook-will-be-used-against-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the same way that people put things in emails without realizing that such information can be obtained in the course of a lawsuit or may otherwise come to light, people do the same thing with their posts to social networks. Facebook is a prime example, and another litigant recently found out that courts do not hesitate to allow an opponent to discover the details of their Facebook page. Keith and Jessica Largent were involved in an accident in 2007. They sued the other drivers. During Ms. Largent’s deposition, defense counsel realized that Ms. Largent had a Facebook profile and she “used it regularly to play a game called FrontierVille.” Largent refused to turn over any information about the account, and defense counsel asked the court to force her to do so. Largent argued that granting her opponent access to her Facebook account was akin to “asking her to turn over . . . her private photo albums and requesting to view her personal email,” and would cause embarrassment and annoyance. The court rejects these arguments, and forces Largent to turn over the account password. In the course of the opinion, the court makes a statement that highlights a misconception about social networking and evidence: Only... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/another-litigant-finds-out-the-hard-way-that-what-you-say-on-facebook-will-be-used-against-you/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/another-litigant-finds-out-the-hard-way-that-what-you-say-on-facebook-will-be-used-against-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast: Honk if You Love Free Speech</title>
		<link>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/podcast-honk-if-you-love-free-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/podcast-honk-if-you-love-free-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Venkat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://focallaw.com/?p=1066</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I did my first podcast, with Mike Reitz of the Supreme Court of Washington Blog (published by the Freedom Foundation): "Honk if you love free speech." I've never done a podcast before, and Mike was a great host. We talked about State v. Immelt, a case where the Washington State Supreme Court struck down a Snohomish County noise ordinance which prohibits horn honking except when the honking is done for public safety or as part of a public event. Check out the podcast here. Also, check out the excellent Supreme Court of Washington blog. It's a great resource for following the Washington State Supreme Court. Of course, you can also follow Mike on... <a href="http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/podcast-honk-if-you-love-free-speech/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://focallaw.com/focalize/2011/11/podcast-honk-if-you-love-free-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

