Posted in: Behavioral Targeting

Gmail Wiretapping Litigation, Class-Action Denied

By Mark Melodia and Paul Bond and Frederick Lah, CIPP/US

The Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification in a suit over Google’s alleged practice of scanning Gmail messages in order to serve content-based advertising. This Privacy Tracker exclusive discusses how Gmail’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which the court previously called “vague at best and misleading at worst,” and “a ‘panoply of sources’ where users could have impliedly consented to Google’s practices” helped the court make its decision. “Putting aside the question of whether Google’s Terms were in fact vague or misleading, a key takeaway for businesses from this case should be the importance of educating customers about their data practices,” the authors write. (IAPP member login required.)

You may need to be an IAPP member and be logged in to read the full article.
Log in now or click here to learn more about IAPP membership.

Using Canadian Telecom Rules to Challenge Interest-Based Advertising

By Timothy M. Banks

Should telecommunications providers be able to use their subscribers’ behavioral information to sell advertising? And are rules stricter than the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) needed for telecoms? A complaint over Bell Canada’s practices brought before the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) may end up determining the answers to these questions. Timothy Banks of Dentons Canada LLP writes in this Privacy Tracker post that if the CRTC agrees with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Consumers’ Association of Canada that “more detailed privacy rules are needed for telecommunications carriers … this could represent one of the most important developments in the evolution of privacy law in Canada since the enactment of PIPEDA.”

You may need to be an IAPP member and be logged in to read the full article.
Log in now or click here to learn more about IAPP membership.

Pragmatic Approaches to Implementing California’s New “Do Not Track” Law

By Stephanie Sharron and Emily Tabatabai, CIPP/US

Last month, California passed a new amendment to the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA) that requires companies that collect personal information from Californians to address how they respond to Do-Not-Track (DNT) signals from browsers in their online privacy policies.According to Stephanie Sharron and Emily Tabatabai, CIPP/US, the legislation “may raise as many questions as it answers,” because due to the lack of consensus from the W3C, “companies are required to disclose how they respond to a browser’s DNT signals, when there is no consensus on what the DNT signal means in the first place.” So what are companies to do? Find out about the options in this Privacy Tracker blog post.

You may need to be an IAPP member and be logged in to read the full article.
Log in now or click here to learn more about IAPP membership.

Global News Roundup

The California state Senate passed a bill that would require require certain website operators and online service providers to disclose whether they honor users’ “do not track” requests; a bill proposed to the Michigan Assembly could mean fines and jail time for law enforcement officers who track suspects using GPS without a warrant; Wisconsin is poised to be the ninth state this year to pass an employee social media privacy law, and, in Brazil, work is ongoing towards the nation’s first set of data protection and Internet governance laws—including a new amendment requiring data to be stored locally, which is raising concerns among U.S. tech companies.

You may need to be an IAPP member and be logged in to read the full article.
Log in now or click here to learn more about IAPP membership.