Search

Many privacy advocates assume that the key to providing individuals with more privacy protection is strengthening the government's power to directly sanction actors that hurt the privacy interests of citizens. This Article contests the conventional wisdom, arguing that private rights of action are essential for privacy regulation. First, I show how private rights of action make privacy law regimes more effective in general. Private rights of action are the most direct regulatory access point to the private sphere. They leverage private expertise and knowledge, create accountability through discovery, and have expressive value in creating privacy-protective norms. Then to illustrate the general principle, I provide examples of how private rights of action can improve privacy regulation in a suite of key modern privacy problems. We cannot afford to leave private rights of action out of privacy reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I. INTRODUCTIONThis Note discusses the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA" or "the Act") and how it applies to users of cell phone applications. The VPPA protects consumers and their personally [...]

The article discusses the reasons why U.S. courts should implement the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) to regulate data collection practices of Internet service providers (ISP) and protect consumer online data. Other topics include the history and provisions of the VPPA, the rescinded ISP privacy regulation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and some cases like 're Hulu Privacy Litigation,' 'Ellis v. Cartoon Network,' and 're Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation.'

The article focuses on meaning of personally identifiable information (PII) in the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) to understand what scope of protection should be implemented for digital identifiers. It examines broad and narrow interpretations of PII implemented by district courts and concludes that a broad interpretation of PII best fits the VPPA's purpose and congressional intent. It also mentions approaches in light of the legislative history.

An introduction is presented in which editor discusses various articles within the issue on topics including developments in patent, copyright, trademark, and privacy, technology-focused regulations and legislature and Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

The Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA) prohibits a videotape service provider from knowingly disclosing the personally identifiable information (PII) of a purchaser, renter, or subscriber to a third party. This legislation was created to protect consumers' privacy. In the last decade, use of the Internet for most daily tasks has skyrocketed, and individuals' methods for acquiring video content have not been immune to this transition. With the increase in technology use to obtain video materials came the need to evaluate whether a user of a free cell phone app qualifies as a subscriber-an undefined term within the VPPA-who would be afforded the Act's information-privacy protections. The First and Eleventh Circuits addressed this issue with conflicting outcomes. In order to give effect to the original intent of the VPPA in this current era of digital downloads, an individual who downloads a free cell phone app and provides valuable PII to the video content provider in exchange for otherwise free video content should be considered a subscriber under the Act and afforded the Act's protections because the PII provided functions as consideration to form a contract between the parties. Due to the highly effective nature of targeted advertisements, PII has enormous value. It is bought and sold in a booming market and thus can function as consideration to form a contractual relationship between the consumer and video content provider. This relationship of heightened significance evidences a meaningful commitment between the parties, thereby affording the app user the status of subscriber and information-privacy protections under the VPPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit in the case Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc. wherein the court held that certain mobile application providers can disclose video viewing history which is liable under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

The article focuses on the reformation of U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. It mentions about resolving a circuit split on issues such as video formats, smartphone apps to view movies and videos, and internet protocol address; court case Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. on the same; and issues of interpretation concerning the statute.

In 2014, online streaming services overtook the traditional method of viewing television programs. Recent court decisions, however, extending the applicability of the Video Privacy and Protection Act (hereafter VPPA) to videos provided over the Internet have created unease in the current system of distributing online content. Originally drafted in 1988 and amended in 2012, the VPPA creates a private cause of action for “consumers” against “video tape service providers” that provide “personally identifiable information” to third parties. Yet, due to unclear definitions in the VPPA’s drafting, the First, Third, and Eleventh Circuits have reach conflicting conclusions over Act’s reach in the online era and the reach of the terms “subscriber,” as a subset of “consumer,” and “personally identifiable information” in Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Network, Inc., In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation, and Ellis v. Cartoon Network. This conflicting precedent threatens the common practice of online video providers trading viewer information in order to secure sufficient revenue. This Note outlines the history of the VPPA and argues that the VPPA in its current form is inadequate to cover the complexities of online video distribution. After outlining and comparing the contrasting approaches by the First, Third, and Eleventh Circuits, this paper illustrates the underlying issues of the cases that cannot be properly addressed through the Supreme Court granting certiorari without causing further needless uncertainty. Finally, this Note describes the necessary considerations for the legislature to correctly balance consumer privacy with the economic realities of free online content and provide a suitable benchmark for online privacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the history of the U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 in relation to legal changes involving digital technology, mobile apps, and online video streaming as of 2017, and it mentions American legal cases involving parties such as Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.

After the Washington City Paper published Judge Bork's rental history of 146 videos during the Supreme Court nomination hearings in 1988, Congress enacted the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). The statute mostly adapted to changing video platforms, but the extent of its protections for smartphone users is questionable. This Comment will argue that the VPPA does not adequately safeguard consumers when app developers or providers allow users to download mobile apps for free. This Comment will discuss the statutory definitions of videotape service provider, consumer, and personally identifiable information ("PII"). It will explain how and why mobile apps collect personal data and what countermeasures the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has taken to regulate mobile businesses. The Comment will analyze the legislative history of the VPPA, the issues with the definitions of consumer and PII, and the societal response to privacy intrusions. This Comment will recommend that the FTC issue business guidance, promote consumer awareness, and bring enforcement actions against businesses that fail to protect consumers. This Comment will conclude that while the VPPA serves as the minimum standard to prevent unauthorized disclosures by mobile app providers and developers, new judicial standards and reliance on the FTC are better measures of regulating mobile commerce in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit's Court in the case 'Mollett v. Netflix Inc.' concerning laws related to disclosure of a consumer's viewing history and other personally identifying information to people other than that consumer was deemed a disclosure to the consumer. It discusses the provision of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) aimed to protect consumers from having their rental histories.

The article focuses on the technical aspects of unique device identifiers and explains their role in database marketing with the passage of the U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). It mentions that unique device identifiers should be protected as personally identifiable information (PII) under the VPPA when disclosed in conjunction with one or more video titles. It also mentions that court case In re Hulu on online video.

The article examine the legislative framework of the U.S. corporate data privacy breaches, as of September 2015. Topics discussed include the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA); decision of the Ninth Circuit court in the case Silicon Graphics; and filing the data breach claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).