|
|
|
READ LATEST NEWS & INFORMATION
Karen Neuman Participates in Panel on Mobile Advertising
Karen
Neuman joined industry experts
at the Electronic Retailing Association Great Ideas Summit
in New Orleans February 1-3 to discuss the benefits of adding
the mobile channel to traditional media ad campaigns. Karens
remarks focused on recent legal and regulatory developments
that direct response retailers should be aware of as they
formulate their mobile campaigns, including recent proceedings
at the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications
Commission, and a recent federal appeals court case involving
SMS advertising. In addition to outlining some of the privacy
issues being addressed by the FTC and the federal court case,
she described the relevance of the FCC open Internet rulemaking
to businesses that reach customers on their mobile devices.
An in-depth article about these developments along with some
practical tips for mobile retailers will appear in the March
issue of the ERAs Retailer Magazine.
Judith
St. Ledger-Roty's article in FierceMobileContent: "How
content providers should address users' privacy concerns"
"Privacy as a concept is generally
understood. What is less clear is the applicability in the
wireless context of various FCC and FTC pronouncements addressing
the use of user specific information that falls within the
privacy umbrella (including the use of information that might
identify a particular person) by non-carrier entities providing
content or advertising services. (These terms are sometimes
used interchangeably here.) It appears that the regulations
that expressly apply in this context are few to non-existent
at the federal level and apply only occasionally at the state
level."
Read more: http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/story/how-content-providers-should-address-users-privacy-concerns/2009-12-16
FTC Launches Round
Table Series on Exploring Privacy
On Dec. 7, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) convened the first of three Roundtable meetings to explore
privacy issues raised by the online collection, retention,
and use of consumer data. The second Roundtable will be held
January 28, 2010 in Berkeley, California, and will specifically
address privacy issues in social networking, cloud computing
and mobile communications. The entire record will remain open
for comments until March 17, 2010.
The Roundtables are not formal rulemaking
proceedings but suggest that the FTC may be running out of
patience with the current self-regulatory approach it has
lived with thus far. The Roundtables can thus be viewed as
a first step to an eventual regulatory framework that better
balances commercial interests in collecting and using consumer
data and the consumer interest in individual privacy
interests that may not be mutually exclusive.
Summary of December 7 Roundtable.
The discussion focused generally on the benefits and risks
of consumer data collection in the contexts of behavioral
and contextual advertising with some attention paid to the
role of data brokers in marketing that information. FTC
Chairman Jon Libowitz set the tone for the day when he cautioned
that industry self-regulation and the current notice
and consent approach may need to be replaced with
a more holistic approach -- one that clearly
took shape during the final session, Exploring Existing
Regulatory Frameworks.
During this session there seemed
to be consensus among consumer advocates and industry representatives
that the current approach to protecting privacy disproportionately
places the burden on consumers who generally lack familiarity
with technology or a meaningful understanding of privacy
policies. The FTC moderator suggested that one fix would
be to update the agencys existing Fair Information
Practices (FIPs) and require industry compliance. Panelists
pointed to the Department of Homeland Security FIPs as an
appropriate model because it better reflects trends in technology
and data collection and use1. Consumer representatives
appeared to concur, advocating for an approach that, at
a minimum, requires meaningful compliance with existing
FIPs and more penetrable privacy policies, access
to collected data and correction rights.
A related approach suggested by an industry
representative was a use and obligations2
framework under which industry data use rather than collection
is the primary driver of industry privacy obligations to
which the FIPs are then applied. Privacy protection obligations
carry throughout the use of the information, including use
by third parties, and require company formulation of appropriate
data management plans at the outset of the use.
All of the panelists were clearly reluctant
to entirely do away with industry self-regulation on grounds
that it promotes innovation and better keeps pace with technological
advances than traditional regulation. Governments
role was framed as providing guideposts for industry that
would serve as a floor for privacy protection. Panelists
also encouraged a more robust use of the FTCs subpoena
power for truly bad actors as authorized under the Federal
Credit Reporting Act.
Other key themes that emerged throughout
the day included:
- Consumers generally expect the greatest
security for the most sensitive information (e.g., health
and financial data) with a risk-based assessment for less
sensitive classes of data and also expect government intervention
if data collection and use practices go too far. Information
brokers suggested defining sensitive data as that which
would create a risk of identity theft and treating it differently
from data that does not pose similar risks.
- Consumers generally do not understand how companies use
their information and are therefore unable to make informed
choices about available options for protecting privacy,
including opt-in and opt-out frameworks,
or tools such as those offered by Google and Yahoo that
let users set privacy preferences.
- Consumers are generally most interested in information
sharing practices and secondary uses of their data. Learning
about these practices should not require multiple clicks
or site registration.
- The FTC should maintain a list of data collection entities
and their practices with appropriate contact information
that is easily accessible to consumers.
It is worth noting that the Roundtables
are occurring as the Federal Communications Commission is
examining similar issues.3 The concurrent inquiries
suggest the possibility of a regulatory scheme that could
involve multiple agencies, adding a new layer of complexity
for some businesses.
Conclusion. It is unlikely that
the Roundtables will result in immediate regulation. A more
plausible scenario is that the Roundtables will lead to
a revision of the FTCs FIPs and the classification
of sensitive data that may require heightened degrees of
protection. In addition, we expect that the record may form
the basis for an FTC report to Congress seeking greater
rulemaking authority, which may then result in formal rulemaking
proceedings to codify some of the approaches emerging from
the Roundtables.
We are available to discuss your current
privacy protection practices with you and to update those
practices based on anticipated actions by the FTC and other
policymakers. Please contact Karen
Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com
or Judith St. Ledger-Roty at judithslr@stlro.com.
FCC Launches Broadband
Internet Openness Rulemaking
On Oct. 22, 2009 the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) voted, over two partial dissents, to initiate
a proceeding to consider draft rules that would require Broadband
Internet Service Providers to provide Internet access for
unaffiliated applications, services, content and devices on
a nondiscriminatory basis and subject to reasonable
and transparent network management practices.
There appeared to be consensus among all the Commissioners
for comments that go well beyond the rhetoric that has characterized
the public discourse on this issue to date. But by asserting
that the proposed rules are limited to addressing Internet
access, as opposed to expressing intent to regulate the Internet
itself, the agency may unintentionally have thrown down the
gauntlet and invited some of the rhetoric it is hoping to
avoid.
The ensuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) seeks responses to a number of questions intended to
help formulate the best means of preserving a free and
open Internet and comment on two pages of proposed rules
to achieve this objective. The proposed rules would codify
the principles contained in the FCCs 2005 Internet Policy
Statement1 and add two transparency and nondiscrimination
requirements. Initial comments are due Jan 14, 2010 and reply
comments are due March 5, 2010.
The rules would apply to all non-wireline
platforms for broadband Internet access, including providers
of mobile wireless, unlicensed wireless, licensed fixed
wireless, and satellite broadband. At the same time, the
NPRM seeks information about how the rules should apply
to these platforms. Recognizing that they operate with different
market structure, consumer usage patterns, regulatory history
and technologies the FCC is asking how these platforms should
be treated under the new rules and what enforcement mechanism
should be employed to ensure compliance.
The FCC seems particularly interested
in how application of the device attachment
rule to mobile wireless networks could harm or otherwise
affect those networks. The agency is also interested in
appropriate time frames for phasing in application of the
rules, or alternatives, to mobile wireless broadband providers.
Similarly, the NPRM recognizes that the unique technical
characteristics of mobile devices, including how the functionality
of a particular device may be tied to spectrum limitations
and how limited spectrum availability and the resulting
potential strain on network capacity from bandwidth intense
services like streaming video, might require a different
definition of reasonable for purposes network
management practices for mobile devices that are typically
sold by the same network operator.
The FCC similarly noted that the unique characteristics
of mobile devices might require a different framework for
application of the access to applications rule.
Anticipating a challenge to its authority to undertake
this particular rulemaking, the NPRM reflects a concerted
effort to inoculate final rules against an adverse outcome
on appeal. The NPRM first provides an overview of the history
of the public Internet then recounts the FCCs role
in setting the stage for the Internets evolution.
It goes on to discuss the FCCs subsequent exercise
of authority while addressing various issues in markedly
different types of proceedings that had the effect of promoting
and preserving the Internet, including the mediums
qualities of openness and nondiscriminatory access
all of which is portrayed as culminating in the Internet
Policy Statement.
Within this framework, the narrative conveys a sense of
inevitability about the FCCs jurisdiction to act in
this instance, portraying the current rulemaking as a logical
next step in the FCCs ongoing effort to preserve the
open Internet. Notwithstanding this approach, the jurisdiction
question may be resolved if the DC Circuit decides the appeal
of an FCC enforcement action against Comcast2 (in which
the agency found that Comcasts network management
practices violated the Internet Policy Statement) before
the conclusion of this proceeding. A finding in favor of
the FCC could strengthen the agencies assertion of jurisdiction
to regulate in this area. A ruling in favor of Comcast could
do just the opposite, unless the Court both concludes that
the FCC has requisite jurisdiction but exercised it improperly.
The NPRM also lays out the marketplace and technological
forces that could shape the Internet of the future -- namely
the mobile Internet -- including the rapid growth of and
demand for high bandwidth use applications and content,
particularly video, and the evolving tools that are available
to network operators to manage increased demand for capacity.
These tools include sophisticated routers that enable network
operators to distinguish among different classes of traffic,
deep packet inspection, cacheing services, and algorithms
that can be used for scheduling transmission of certain
classes of traffic, to name a few.
All of this background tees up the thrust of the NPRM,
which is a request for specific comment on the proposed
rules.
As mentioned, the first four rules codify the existing
Internet principles and would prohibit broadband ISPs, subject
to reasonable network management practices3,
from:
- Preventing their users from sending or receiving lawful
content of the users choice over the Internet;
- preventing their users from running lawful applications
or using lawful services of the users choice;
- preventing their users from connecting to and using on
its network the users choice of lawful devices that
do not harm the network; and
- depriving any of their users of their entitlement to competition
among network providers, application providers, service
providers and content providers
Two new rules would impose transparency and nondiscrimination
obligations, and would require broadband ISPs to:
- treat lawful content, applications and services in a
nondiscriminatory manner; and
- disclose such information concerning network management
and other practices as is reasonably required for users
and content, application and service providers to enjoy
the protections specified in this rulemaking.
Broadband ISPs would be permitted to address harmful or
unwanted traffic such as spam, and prevent the transfer
of unlawful content, including child pornography and the
unlawful transfer of content, including a transfer that
would infringe on works protected by copyright. Questions
about what constitutes spam and works protected by copyright
might raise concerns about whether ISPs want to be in a
position to make these kinds of determinations without specific
guidance. The rules would not interfere with an ISPs
obligation to deliver emergency communications or to address
law enforcement, public safety, or national or homeland
security needs.
The NPRM also reveals the FCCs interest in whether
managed or specialized services
should be subject to different treatment, including how
to define these services and what if any rules should apply
to them. Examples of managed or specialized services include
voice, subscription video, enterprise and business services,
telemedicine, smart grid and e-learning all of which
may be delivered over the same Internet access facilities
but have not been considered to be traditional Internet
services or products.
In addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether the proposed
rules would apply to Internet-based applications providers
like Google -- whose services (for example Google
Voice) may or may not be classified as telecommunications
services -- and the implications of how those services are
classified for purposes of FCCs jurisdiction and regulatory
treatment.
An interesting issue that could surface involves whether
the scope of this proceeding should be expanded to include
entities that arguably play a gate keeping role
on the Internet or in the mobile ecosystem. For example,
applications developers have expressed growing concern about
how app stores decide what applications are
approved for shelving and sale in those stores
and whether those decisions effectively decide the success
or failure of any given application instead of ceding that
power to the market . This argument is very similar to those
made in previous debates about the risks to the Internet
posed by the comparable powers of the ISPs. Similar concerns
have also been raised about the role search engines play
in listing search results. An obvious obstacle to addressing
these concerns in this proceeding is its explicit focus
on the activities of broadband access providers
and neither app stores nor search engines fall within the
definition of broadband access provider in the proposed
rule. But it is an intriguing question and one that may
strike a chord with other agencies, such as DOJ or even
the FTC both of which have made clear their interest
in closely scrutinizing the activities of technology companies
and possible competition risks posed by those activities.
Since this proceeding was initiated, technology has continued
to evolve quickly and there is some risk of obsolescence
to the final rules as published despite the FCCs
stated goal that any rules will be sufficiently dynamic
for unforeseen technological innovation. The outcome of
this rulemaking has potentially significant implications
for broadband ISPs, and wireless mobile broadband network
operators in particular, as well as a wide array of business
and other interests that increasingly, if not exclusively,
depend on the Internet to sell or provide services, products
and information. These interests include applications and
device manufacturers in addition to the smart grid,
electronic health care and e-learning sectors that are explicitly
mentioned in the NPRM; subscription and user generated video,
music, news and other content producers and distributors,
consumer electronics manufacturers, online advertisers ,
publishers and retailers, financial and educational institutions,
and even the hospitality and travel sectors.
This proceeding should be of equal interest to end user;
its outcome could set the stage for congestion management
practices that have only been the subject of discussion
thus far, including offering tiered service or charging
for priority transmission of packets. The challenge for
regulators will be to 1) understand of the nature and extent
of the network operators need to manage and prioritize
network traffic and the tools for doing so, and 2) balance
this interest with the interests of entities that currently
use -- or are planning for future uses of -- the Internet
to deliver content, products and services, as well as the
end users who will use existing and new applications to
access those products or services.
Accordingly, those at the core of the network,
including broadband ISPs as well as innovators at the edge
of the network have a strong stake in taking advantage of
this opportunity to educate the FCC and shape the contemplated
rules through comments at the very least.
This is a proceeding that is technically complex and one
that poses novel policy and legal questions. We are available
to provide you with various forms of assistance, including
providing strategic guidance about how to move forward with
contemplated business objectives based on our judgment of
the likely regulatory environment your business will be
operating in, helping to prepare comments, arrange meetings
with key FCC officials, and monitor related developments
in Congress or the courts.
Please contact us if you would like additional information.
Judith St. Ledger-Roty : judithslr@stlro.com
Karen L. Neuman: kneuman@slrno.com
Jeffrey H. Olson: jolson@stlro.com
Karen L. Neuman Discusses Legal Issues Involving Mobile Media
Karen L.
Neuman, a partner in St. Ledger-Roty
Neuman & Olson, was a speaker at a Media Future Now program
Privacy, Mobile and Social Media" on October
19, 2009 in Washington, DC. She explained that many of the
legal issues seen in telephony, cable and the Internet have
surfaced in mobile communications, including the nature of
program distribution agreements between carriers and content
producers, data security, universal service, and even liability
issues arising from employee use of mobile devices in the
workplace.
Focusing on some specific legal
issues in the mobile media ecosystem, Karen noted that the
unprecedented deployment of new technologies, applications
and devices has created new opportunities to commercialize
personal information about individuals who access services
and products on their mobile devices -- outpacing efforts
of policymakers to protect privacy and individual data while
preserving innovation in the mobile space. Privacy is of particular
concern in the mobile context due to the availability of location
based applications and advertising.
Explaining that
multiple state and federal authorities have grappled with
these issues, Karen recommended that any entity contemplating
a mobile advertising campaign be aware of the many laws,
principles and best practices that could apply to mobile
marketing activities including commercial text messaging,
mobile sweepstakes and telemarketing.
Using a case on remand in the Northern
District of California, Karen demonstrated the impact of
the current uncertain legal environment that many behind-the-scenes
players in the mobile advertising sector operate in, and
how compliance with industry best practices could be a prudent
approach to minimizing the potential for litigation. This
seems to have been particularly so in California case, which
involved an unsolicited text messaging campaign to a cell
phone subscriber who signed up for a free ringtone for her
son. The case addresses some issues that may be familiar
by now to the online advertising sector, including the nature
of the consent given and the relationships of the commercial
entities involved in the transaction. Also addressed was
the classification of the ringtone as voice or data and
the medium specific nature of the equipment used to send
the text for purposes of the pertinent legal analysis.
Karen concluded her remarks by
emphasizing that some common themes have emerged in the
currently splintered regulatory environment, including clear
preferences for transparency and choice that goes well beyond
todays privacy policies and terms of use agreements.
She also described some novel approaches, including Googles
ad preference program, which enables individuals to control
the amount and type of advertising delivered to them. Another
approach involves providing something of value to the consumer,
such as a coupon or rebate, in exchange for commercial use
of personal information.
Karen
L. Neumans bio
Mobile Media & Privacy
FTC PUBLISHES GUIDES GOVERNING ENDORSEMENTS AND TESTIMONIALS IN ADVERTISING
On October 5, 2009, the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) adopted revised guides concerning the use
of endorsements and testimonials in advertising and requiring
disclosure of material connections (payments or
free products or services) between advertisers and endorsers.
The guides, last updated in 1980, are not binding agency rules.
Instead, they are administrative interpretations of applicable
law intended to help advertisers comply with prohibitions
against deceptive practices under Section 5 Federal Trade
Commission Act. Accordingly, they represent a significant
policy statement that will affect advertisers that rely on
endorsements or testimonials by consumers, experts, organizations
and celebrities and now apply to new media including blogs
and social networks. The revised guides go into effect December
1, 2009.
Advertisements that depict a consumer
characterizing results from using a particular product or
service as typical when that is not the case will
now be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers
can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 guides, where
advertisers were permitted to describe extraordinary results
in a testimonial as long as they included the disclaimer results
not typical, the revised guides eliminate this safe
harbor.
Bloggers. The revised
guides now apply to bloggers and other word of mouth
marketers who use social media to discuss, review
or evaluate products or services. The guides illustrate
what constitutes an endorsement when the endorsement is
conveyed by a blogger and specifies the applicable disclosure.
A blog post by a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment
to review or evaluate something theyve read on a website,
or a product or service theyve received, must disclose
the material connections with the website or seller of the
product or service. An example of the former would be a
website that helps bloggers find advertisers willing to
sponsor specific reviews or other content; an example of
the latter would be a manufacturer of a product or service
that gives the blogger a free product and asks the blogger
to write about it. The critical question is the net
consumer impression.
One example given by the agency
to illustrate the principle involves a college student who
has earned a reputation as a video game expert and maintains
a personal blog where he posts entries about his gaming
experiences. Readers seek his opinions about video game
hardware and software. A video game system manufacturer
provides the student with a free copy of the system and
asks him to write about it on his blog. Because the bloggers
review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated
media in which his relationship to the manufacturer
is not inherently obvious and readers are unlikely
to know that he has received a product free of charge in
exchange for a review of a product and given the value
of the system, these factors could materially affect
the credibility attached to the endorsement. The Agencys
intent is to ensure that consumers are informed about bloggers
whose posts are the result of a commercial transaction where
consumers would otherwise be unaware of such a relationship.
Under these circumstances, the blogger should clearly
and conspicuously disclose receipt of the gaming system
free of charge.
Moreover, the manufacturer
has obligations under the revised guides: it should advise
the blogger at the time it provides the gaming system that
this connection should be disclosed and the manufacturer
should have procedures in place to monitor the bloggers
postings for compliance.
The revised guides exempt product or
service reviews in traditional media from the disclosure
requirements applicable bloggers. The rational appears to
be that a newspaper or even an Internet news website with
independent editorial functionality typically assigns an
employee to review a product or service for publication
by the newspaper or news site. These reviews are not treated
as sponsored endorsements under the guides, unless the reviewer
receives a direct benefit from the manufacturer of the product
or service.
Celebrity Endorsements. The revised guides
impose a duty on celebrities to disclose their relationships
with advertisers when endorsing products or services in
non-traditional advertising settings such as talk-shows
or through social media outlets. Celebrity endorsements
through traditional advertising are exempt from the revised
guides on the theory that consumers understand that celebrities
may be paid to appear in traditional advertising. On the
other hand, consumers may not expect celebrities to be compensated
for expressing their views about a specific product or service
when appearing on a talk show. Both advertisers and celebrity
endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims
made in an endorsement or for failure to disclose
material connections between the advertiser and endorsers.
Endorsement by Research Organization.
The revised guides characterize endorsements by a research
organization as viewed as representing the judgment of a
group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual
member, and whose judgments are generally free of the sort
of subjective factors which vary from individual to individual.
If an organization is represented as being expert then in
conjunction with a proper exercise of its expertise in evaluating
a product its endorsement must be supported by an expert
evaluation by an expert or experts recognized as such by
the organization, or by compliance with standards previously
adopted by the organization and aimed at measuring the performance
of the product in general and not with the particular attributes
of the advertised product in mind. A company that refers
in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization
that conducted research sponsored by the company must disclose
the connection between the advertiser and the research organization.
The revised guides adopt significant
changes that will affect advertisers in general, and bloggers
and social media particular. If you are an advertiser relying
on testimonials or endorsements covered by the revised guides,
or are a blogger or social media critic or other user unfamiliar
with the reach of the FTC to your medium it important that
you become familiar with and understand the revised guides
and their application to your activities. We are available
to assist you with this undertaking as well as provide compliance
and other pertinent advice.
Please contact Karen L. Neuman
at kneuman@slrno.com
or Judith St. Ledger-Roty at judithslr@stlro.com.
FCC Seeks Comment on Barriers to Broadband Deployment and Adoption on Tribal Lands.
On September 23, 2009 the FCC released
a public notice seeking comment about barriers to broadband
deployment and adoption on Tribal lands1 and how
those barriers can be minimized or eliminated. As with other
recent agency actions2, this inquiry is intended
to solicit targeted information for inclusion in the National
Broad Plan3 report due to Congress February 17,
2010. The report is mandated by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009,4 which establishes as
a goal that every American has access to broadband services.
A significant hurdle to achieving this
goal and the FCCs underlying request for information
about broadband deployment in Native American communities
is the relative lack of recent data on penetration rates in
those communities. According to the FCC, the most recently
available census data suggests the extent of the problem --
that broadband deployment on Tribal lands is at most 30 percent5;
data submitted jointly by the National Congress of American
Indians and Native Public Media places that number even lower,
at 5%6.
The Commission noted a number of beneficial
uses to broadband in Tribal communities. Some of these uses
include broadband solutions for better health resources,
greater community connectedness, improved educational opportunities,
more efficient public safety measures, and greater energy
efficiency. But the agency also identified a number of hurdles
to realizing these benefits, including difficult terrain,
low population densities, and correlating higher deployment
costs, the combination of which discourages network operators,
like the telephone companies before them, from serving these
areas. Other potential hurdles mentioned by the FCC include
difficulties obtaining required government licenses or permits
or access to government assets, as well as restrictions
in the use of government funding that hinder the pursuit
of broader broadband goals.7 Many similar issues
have surfaced in connection with examining broadband deployment
in other under- or un-served areas, including rural communities
and low-income urban areas.8 In those instances,
however, one notable hurdle is absent and that is the jurisdictional
challenges posed by Tribal sovereignty or applicable treaties.
With this in mind, the Commission
is requesting specific information in the following areas:
1) quantitative deployment and adoption data, 2) tools and
resources available for promoting broadband deployment in
Native American communities consistent with the realities
of the telecommunications marketplace on Tribal lands
and the fiduciary trust relationship between the federal
government and the Tribes, including whether there
are lessons to be learned from the build-out of telephone
lines that can be applied to broadband deployment, and whether
there are examples of coordination or cooperation among
tribal, state and local governments in the build-out of
telecommunication infrastructure that could serve as models
for broadband deployment; 3) deployment and mapping, including
whether there are any jurisdictional or other reasons why
states do not include Tribal lands in broadband mapping
and the extent to tribal census tract data could assist
with broadband mapping efforts; 4) digital literacy/education,
including whether existing facilities already serve or could
serve as training locations , such as computing centers,
schools or libraries or chapter houses, and
the percent of Tribal community centers, schools and households
that are passed today by fixed, mobile telephony or cable
services; 5) affordability, including what public and private
entities can do to promote broadband adoption, including
discounting computers or the cost of monthly service to
specified tribal consumers, or reducing the cost of broadband
connectivity and service through such programs as Lifeline/Link
Up programs; and 6) the role of Broadband Service Providers
in bringing broadband services to Tribal lands, including
such factors as the practical utility of pilot programs
and the impact of Tribal sovereignty and jurisdictional
issues on the ability of carriers to obtain rights of way
over Tribal lands and entry.
This proceeding presents unique opportunities
to influence the FCCs thinking about how to address
pertinent market, jurisdictional, regulatory and legal issues.
Tribal authorities, mobile wireless broadband providers,
spectrum licensees or other holders of interests in spectrum,
backhaul facilities providers, and network management applications
and device manufacturers that can be used for broadband
deployment could be affected by this proceeding. Large network
operators that serve adjacent areas could also be affected
by the outcome of this proceeding.
Comments are due November 9, 2009. Reply
comments are due December 9, 2009.
We are available to analyze the Public
Notice, help arrange meetings with appropriate officials
as necessary assist with preparing comments for filing with
the FCC and monitor related proceedings at the agency.
For further information please
contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com
or Jeff Olson at jolson@stlro.com.
FCC Issues Public Notice Seeking Comment
on Use of Broadband for Smart Grid Technology
On September 4 the Federal Communications
Commission issued a public notice seeking comment on the use
of broadband for implementing smart grid technologies. These
technologies generally consist of applications and devices to
monitor and manage energy consumption by utilities and energy
consumers. This inquiry is part of the agencys broader
initiative to obtain information to include in its National
Broadband Plan report, due to Congress February 17, 2010.
That the Commission sees itself playing
an instrumental role in promoting deployment of innovative
technologies over communications networks to implement key
features of the Obama Administrations energy agenda
is evidenced by this inquiry, its request for information
about the smart grid in the Broadband and Wireless Innovation
Notices of Inquiry1 and the agencys recent
smart grid workshops. These proceedings present unique opportunities
for start up businesses and established companies alike to
influence at the outset the FCCs thinking about how
to address pertinent market, regulatory and legal issues.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 embodies the recognition that revamping the nations
utility grid to accommodate the energy needs of the 21st century
is likely to increase demand for electricity. At the same time,
however, digitizing some aspects of electricity transmission
and delivery could help manage demand while utilizing emerging
applications and technologies to reduce energy consumption.
The FCC is soliciting comments about barriers
to entry and growth as well as opportunities for
companies bringing smart grid technology to the wireless ecosystem.
In particular, the FCC is asking for information about highly
technical aspects of the smart grid, including the type of bandwidth
and speed required for smart grid technologies, and how home
networks will fit into the energy grid. The FCC also is also
seeking information about the suitability of existing communications
technologies and availability of existing networks for smart
grid deployment and data transmission. The Agency, mirroring
parallel assessments by utilities and meter device manufacturers
about the use of spectrum for transmission of real time pricing
and consumption data is particularly interested in whether smart
grid wireless networks can perform better over licensed wireless
spectrum, which is dedicated, or unlicensed spectrum, which
is shared. The goal is to promote the efficient use of energy
on both the supply and demand sides to help utilities and consumers
reduce energy consumption through demand response by utilities
and providing consumers access to their consumption information
via in-home displays or web portals on wireless mobile devices.
Companies that produce wireless networking
management tools, software or hardware manufacturers that enable
two-way dialog between utilities, retailers and consumers, and
other application or device manufacturers that can be utilized
for smart grid purposes could be affected by the outcome of
this proceeding. Spectrum licensees or users of shard spectrum
could also be affected by the outcome of this proceeding.
We are available to interpret and analyze
the Public Notice, help arrange meetings with appropriate officials
as necessary and assist with preparing comments for filing with
the FCC.
For further information contact Karen
Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com
or Judith St. Ledger-Roty at judithslr@stlro.com.
FCC ISSUES NOTICES OF INQUIRY INTO COMPETITION AND INNOVATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
In late August the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) initiated two related wireless
inquiries which ultimately could result in dramatic changes
in the way that wireless services and equipment are used,
and the way in which they are, or are not, regulated. In these
two inquiries1 the FCC asks hundreds of questions about the
extent to which wireless services are provided competitively,
the way in which spectrum is utilized, whether it can be better
utilized, the degree of innovation that this market has fostered,
and what needs to happen to speed innovation to industries
like the financial, health and energy industries.
Purposes of Notices. The FCC recognizes
that the wireless market has changed dramatically, from a
voice only platform, to a voice and data platform, one that
will facilitate ever expanding broadband services and applications
in both the communications marketplace, and in edge
markets such as health care and energy, and that a review
of the broader market is necessary. These inquiries will likely
be used to inform the Agencys thinking in its annual
Report to Congress on the competitive conditions in the wireless
industry, as it now broadly defines it. The data may also
be used as the basis for rulemaking proceedings in which the
Commission can propose, or seek to eliminate, rules.
Competition and Consumer Benefits.
As part of its inquiry, the FCC asks a range of questions
about both network providers and the consumers they serve.
From a competition perspective, the FCC is not looking at
just the total number of broadband wireless licensees in
a given market segment, but also how [it] should assess
the ways in which spectrum holdings affect market structure,
conduct and performance. Of particular interest to
the FCC is whether consumers and end users are able
to access the internet and other applications over their
wireless network providers system. This assessment
also includes the device market for both traditional handsets,
and smart phones, netbooks and modems/aircards as well as
other devices which are connected by the customer or end-
user to access the services or applications they desire.
In order to judge the level of competition in specific wireless
submarkets, the FCC asks what the different market segments
are, and the degree to which specific pricing plans affect
consumer choice. It also want to know whether consumers
are constrained from switching carriers, and if so, why.
The FCC recognizes that there
are already proceedings underway which address competitive
conduct in the wireless market and that it may make decisions
in those proceeding based on those records. Among the proceedings
the FCC may be referencing include a Skype Communications
S.A.R.L. (Skype) petition to the FCC. Skype, a VOIP, asks
the FCC to declare that the FCCs decision in its seminal
Carterphone decision, which allowed consumers to
connect their choice of customer premises equipment to the
landline network, applies equally to wireless networks.
Also pending is the Rural Cellular Association
(RCA) petition alleging that some data enabled
smart phones, are not available to rural users. RCA claims
that the iPhone manufactured by Apple is exclusively
available to customers of AT&T, making it unavailable
in at least large portion of 15 states. ( In an August 21st
letter to the FCCs Wireless Bureau, AT&T indicated
that it offers the largest subsidy AT&T has ever provided
to subscribers who purchase the iPhone 3G. ).
Spectrum Utilization and Innovation.
Both NOIs ask exhaustive sets of questions about spectrum
utilization. For example, the FCC asks how the current wireless
carriers utilize the spectrum that they have, if some spectrum
is lying fallow, and if so why. It wants to know whether
there are things it could do to improve utilization, including
allowing more use of white space, encouraging more spectrum
sharing, and whether such use should be licensed or unlicensed.
It wants to know whether there is a relationship between
investment in the wireless ecosystem, and spectrum utilization,
and if so, how to measure it. The FCC also inquires if there
is more it can do to encourage efficient shared use, subleasing,
partitioning, and use of white space generally.
The FCC recognizes that one of its key
challenges in bringing innovation to the market is the availability
of sufficient spectrum, especially since most of the spectrum
in the U.S. has already been put into use. With this in
mind, it asks whether there are specific radio bands which
could be repurposed and how such repurposing
can be accomplished. It also asks whether in such circumstances
clearing existing users off the band is required, or if
there are additional innovative uses which would allow both
applications to co-exist.
Referencing the FCCs creation
of the ability to transfer certain spectrum rights, including
leasing of spectrum in the secondary markets, the FCC wants
to know the extent to which the market for secondary use
is working and if there are rule changes that would increase
the amount of available spectrum for prospective users.
It also seeks to understand the degree to which determining
what constitutes harmful interference imposes
unreasonable delays and whether it should rely on different
means of dispute resolution that might yield quicker decisions
where interference occurs. The FCC notes that the association
of particular services and applications with particular
spectrum may become less relevant and asks if the
FCC should use a new spectrum access model that permits
for increases in spectrum use.
The FCC asks new stakeholders such as
the energy and health care providers to help it undertake
its analysis by providing information and data within their
purview, including how wireless is being used in their industries
for innovative purposes, and if there is anything the FCC
can do to facilitate innovation. It encourages participation
by entities in edge markets by indicating that its rules
allow for those confidential submissions, which can be withheld
from public inspection.
The answers to these questions may show
the wireless ecosystem and each of its subsets to be vigorously
competitive and operating consistent with the public interest.
However, these proceedings may also reveal that dominance
in the spectrum arena allows carriers to dominate the broader
market for wireless services. Answers to these questions,
and the FCCs response thereto, may well determine
how this marketplace continues to develop in this country,
perhaps not just in wireless but in other goods and services
as well.
We are available to interpret and analyze
the NOI with your needs in mind.
Please contact Judith St. Ledger-Roty
at judithslr@stlro.com,
Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com,
or Jeff Olson at jolson@stlro.com
for further information.
FTC Health Data Breach Notification
Final Rule
August 21, 2009
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released
its final Health Data Breach Notification Rule on August 17,
2009.1 The rule was mandated by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and is intended to respond to
the growing potential for data breaches of personal health
care information as this data is increasing stored not in
the offices of health care providers but in large databases
maintained by third parties, including private, web-based
data storage facilities commonly referred to as clouds.
The rule requires non- HIPPAA-covered web-based vendors of
personal health records and third party service providers
or related entities to notify individuals in the event of
a breach involving their unsecured health information
that is personally identifiable health information that is
not protected through the use of technology such as encryption.2
This alert highlights key provisions of the Rule and its potential
impact on covered entities.
Key Terms and Covered Entities.
- Personal health record vendors: Non-HIPPA covered
web-based entities that offer or maintain an individuals
personal health record.
- Personal health record (PHR): an electronic record
of identifiable health information about an individual.
- Related entity: offers products or services through
a PHR vendors website such as an application that
helps manage medication. A related entity is also one that
offers certain PHR products or services through HIPAA-covered
entities websites. An example of a PHR related entity
would be one that provides online applications for connecting
devices such as insulin and blood pressure monitors for
transmittal to the record or tracks the results.3
- Third party service provider: an entity that provides
services to a PHR vendor in connection with the offering
or maintenance of a PHR or to a PHR related entity in connection
with a product or service offered by that entity, such as
providing billing or data storage to a PHR vendor or related
entity.
Notification Requirement Triggers.
The rules notification provisions
are triggered when an individuals unsecured PHR data
maintained by a PHR vendor or related entity is discovered
to have been acquired by a third party without the consent
of the individual. A breach is deemed discovered at the
point when any employee, officer or other agent of the PHR
vendor knows or should reasonably have known that a breach
occurred. Notice must be given to affected individuals without
unreasonable delay and in any event no more than 60 days
after discovery of the breach. Breaches involving 500 or
more people require FTC notification
In addition, third party service providers
must notify the PHR vendor or related entity for breaches
arising from its products or services. Third party service
providers must notify a senior official of the PHR vendor
or related entity. In order for this notice to be effective
its receipt must be acknowledged, after which the PHR vendor
must notify affected individuals and the FTC, unless the
vendor and the related entity or service provider have otherwise
contracted.
Notification Time, Method and
Content.
The time, method and content of notification
of a breach are prescribed in the rule and may include notice
to specified media outlets, posting on a vendors website,
and even by e-mail. Breaches affecting 500 people or more
require FTC within 10 business days of discovery and notice
to the public through the media. The agency has a form posted
on its website for submitting breach notices to the FTC.
When breaches involve less than 500 people vendors may maintain
a log of breaches occurring during the calendar year and
submit the log to the agency at years end.
Business Consequences.
The rule could entail significant compliance
costs. The FTC anticipates that the rule covers approximately
900 entities, including 200 PHR vendors, 500 related entities
and some 200 third party service providers. It is also estimated
that each of these entities will experience 11 breaches
per year that may trigger the rules notification requirements.
The potential costs to covered entities
could include significant compliance costs estimated by
the FTC to exceed $1 million annually. These costs include:
1) determining what information was breached, 2) identifying
affected individuals, 3) preparing the breach notices and
4) reporting the breach to the FTC. Other costs include
those associated with notifying affected individuals and
responding to their inquiries through various means, including
a toll-free number set up by the responsible entity.
These costs could potentially deter
innovation, particularly by small companies that develop
applications, products and services for remote monitoring,
storage, access and use of personal health data by patients,
family and care providers, physicians and insurance companies.
In addition, violators would be treated as having engaged
in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of
the FTC Act4and could be subject to criminal or civil penalties.
The rule could also affect contractual relationships created
by a PHRs terms of service agreement and users of
the PHR product. For example, the rule could create uncertainties
about contractual obligations or impose obligations that
exceed existing ones.
Application.
The rule applies to breaches that occur
after September 18, 2009 although the FTC has indicated
that for the first 180 days it will exercise discretion
enforcing it, after which all covered entities are expected
to be in full compliance. It can be found at 16 CFR Part
318.
We are available to assist you in evaluating
your current data security and breach detection procedures
and to provide guidance about bringing those procedures
into compliance with the new rule.
Please contact Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com
or Judith St. Ledger-Roty at judithslr@stlro.com
to obtain additional information.
FTC Delays Enforcement
of "Red Flags" Rule Until November 1, 2009
July 2009
The Federal Trade Commission is delaying
enforcement of its Red Flags Rule1
(issued on November 9, 2007) until November 1, 2009. The rule
requires businesses and organizations that act as "creditors"
within the meaning of the Fair and Accurate Credits Transactions
Act to establish policies and procedures for detecting signs
of potential identity theft, or red flags and
responding accordingly, including notifying affected individuals.
The term "creditor" is defined
broadly to include "any person who regularly extends,
renews, or continues credit; any person who regularly arranges
for the extension, renewal, or continuation of credit; or
any assignee of any original creditor who participates in
the decision to extend, renew, or continue credit."2
Accordingly, the rule applies to entities
as diverse as newspapers, lawyers, medical professionals,
retailers that offer financing or process credit applications
as well as mom and pop retailers that routinely
bill in arrears for goods and services. Many entities that
do not consider themselves creditors may be surprised to
discover that they are covered under the rule. Companies
should assess their business practices -- including their
billing practices -- carefully to determine whether they
are covered by the broad "creditor" definition.
Following numerous requests seeking
exemption from the rule, the FTC initially delayed enforcement
until May 1, 2009 as it sought to clarify which entities
would be covered.
More recently, the American Bar Association
filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
to block enforcement of the rule, arguing in part that billing
a client is not an extension of credit that turns every
lawyer and law firm into a creditor. The ABA also contends
that in applying the rule to lawyers the FTC failed to articulate
a rational connection between the practice of law and identify
theft.
Despite the FTCs decision to delay
enforcement of this rule and the federal court proceedings,
businesses that provide services to their customers for
which those customers are later billed should assess their
current programs for detecting and responding to potential
identity theft. While it is possible that very few businesses
may obtain exemption from the rule, the majority of businesses
that bill in arrears will be required to comply with its
provisions.
We are ready to assist with assessing
your business and billing practices to ascertain if you
are a covered entity under the rule, evaluate your identify
theft detection program for compliance with the rule, and
provide guidance as needed to bring it into compliance.
For additional questions about
FTC enforcement of the Red Flags rule please contact Karen
Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com
or Judith St. Ledger-Roty at judithslr@stlro.com
or call Karen or Judith at 202.454.9401.
APPLICANTS AWAIT WORD ON NTIA-RUS FIRST ROUND OF BROADBAND STIMULUS AWARDS & DETAILS ABOUT FUTURE FUNDING ROUNDS
Applications representing all 50 states,
5 territories and the District of Columbia sought broadband
stimulus funds from the National Telecommunications Information
Agency (NTIA) and Rural Utility service (RUS) in response
to the July 1 2009 Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for
broadband stimulus money available under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act. Private and public entities with defined
projects that proposed promoting multiuse functions, utilizing
multi-sector, non-discriminatory, open networks that could
be implemented on a hurry up basis were thought
to be better positioned to qualify for and receive stimulus
dollars under the NOFAs rules. The type of partnership
the rules seemed to encourage included collaborations between
institutions of higher learning and other eligible entities
that proposed integrating general end-user services through
a variety of local stakeholder networks to provide opportunities
for such services as distance learning, job training and telemedicine.
Conversely, applicants that simply proposed a single use private
network, such as one that interconnects schools to libraries,
were unlikely to be approved.
This first NOFA appeared designed primarily
to support projects in communities in the least served areas
of rural America, with only limited opportunities for funding
metropolitan areas with low-bandwidth service and low penetration
(forty percent or less of households). Funds were available
to support last mile and middle mile broadband infrastructure
projects to unserved and underserved.
Those terms were defined in the NOFA, as provided below. Funds
were also available for public computer centers and broadband
sustainability projects.
Given the short
time frame for submitting applications in response to this
NOFA (July 14-August14), the most competitive applications
were those where rigorous market analysis, business planning
and engineering were already well underway. Many potential
applicants that were not very far along in the process decided
to consider the risks and benefits of applying for funding
in the subsequent rounds. We are available to undertake
this analysis for entities considering seeking funding in
the second or third rounds.
Summary of Key Provisions in First
NOFA.
State and local governments, Native
American tribes, nonprofit foundations, corporations and
associations and private sector entities were eligible to
apply. This approach was intended to encourage partnerships
to expand to the greatest extent broadband capabilities
and uses.
The agencies intended to award approximately
$4 billion in this initial round of funding, for which applications
were to be submitted between July 14 and August 14. NTIA
intended to release 1.6 billion dollars in grants and RUS
appropriate $2.4 billion for last mile and middle
mile projects. NTIA grant recipients must provide
a minimum of 20% in matching funds. Priority was to be given
to projects that give end users a choice of providers: serve
the highest proportion of rural residents that lack access
to broadband service: were projects of current or former
RUS borrowers; and were fully funded and ready to start
once funding is received. The majority of the $2.4 billion
released by RUS were in loan/grant combinations. 320 million
dollars was held in reserve. Following an elaborate review
process, described below, both agencies are slated to begin
making awards on a rolling basis around November 7. Applications
were required to include a legal opinion as to your ability
to apply for funding. Five percent of the grant could be
used to cover costs associated with preparing the application.
Definitions.
The NOFA defines the following key terms:
Broadband: a terrestrial
wireless or wireline connection that can deliver speeds
of at least 768kb/s downstream and 200 kb/s upstream.
These speeds appear slow by todays standards, reflecting
a desire to make the process as least restrictive as possible,
preserving the ability of a broad range of technologies
and applicants to qualify. That said, preference will be
given to higher-speed projects.
Unserved: one or more contiguous
census tracts in which at least 90% of households
lack broadband connectivity.
Underserved for last mile projects:
areas where 50% of households or more lack broadband, where
fewer than 40% of households subscribe to broadband, or
where no service provider advertises broadband transmission
speeds of at least 3 Mb/s. At least one of these factors
must be met, although there is a presumption that more than
one factor is present.
Underserved for middle mile projects:
where one interconnection point terminates in a proposed
funded service area that qualifies as unserved or underserved
for last mile projects. Service areas are composed
of one or more contiguous census blocks that meets the criteria
for broadband service and advertised speeds.
The challenges posed by the granular
census block designation was intended to 1) identify eligible
areas without a definitive or authoritative source for this
information, which is largely in the possession of incumbent
broadband providers and, therefore, 2) surviving challenges
by existing broadband providers who are able to .
The grant set asides for middle mile
projects were intended to promote the extension of service
in the last mile to a home by ensuring that the connection
extends back to the local ISP through the network and then
out to the Internet.
Non-discrimination and Interconnection
Obligations: All applicants were required to adhere
to the FCCs Internet Policy Statement, and disclose
proposed interconnection, nondiscrimination. Network management
practices were also required to be disclosed in the applications.
We expect these requirements to be included in subsequent
NOFAs.
In addition to a commitment to an open,
non-discriminatory network, applicants were evaluated on
the proposed openness of the proposed network. Preference
was given to applications that exceeded the minimum requirements
for interconnection and nondiscrimination.
Evaluation/Award Process.
The first NOFA established an elaborate,
two-step application process. The goal of the first step
was to create a pool of viable applications for consideration.
The goal of step two was to fully vet the submissions that
made the cut in step one and identify the most highly qualified
projects for final review and selection. The scoring systems
for RUS and NTIA proposals differed and it was necessary
for applicants to be familiar with each. Nevertheless, in
each instance applicants were required to submit a system
design and project timeline, certified by a professional
engineer for any project seeking funds over $1 million.
States were granted considerable influence over who would
receive awards under the BTOP program by being able to provide
a priority list and recommended projects, along with an
explanation of whey selected proposals meet the greatest
needs of that particular state.
There were a number of questions raised
by the NOFA which the agencies tried to address on their
websites, and in information meetings with potential applicants.
Concerns remain about the programs scoring criteria,
eligibility requirements, and even whether projects proposed
in the future that differ from those that appeared to be
competitive in the first round will be funded in the subsequent
rounds. It is therefore anticipated that the rules will
revised for the second and third rounds of funding, currently
slated to commence in fall 2009, and may be broadened to
support funding for urban and other projects. It is possible
that one or both agencies will revise the rules in the first
NOFA rules through rulemaking proceedings but so far there
has been no announcement.
We remain available to interpret, analyze
and clarify the forthcoming NOFAs, provide strategic guidance
to help you prepare your application, and provide other
legal or strategic review and support. We are also available
to help prepare comments for filing and, in any event, arrange
meetings with appropriate officials as necessary.
Please contact Karen L. Neuman
at kneuman@slrno.com
or Jeff Olson at jolson@stlro.com
to discuss how we can provide assistance with the application
process for future funding rounds and related projects.
FTC ISSUES STAFF REPORT ON COMMERCE IN THE MOBILE MARKETPLACE
On April 22, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission
issued its long awaited report entitled Beyond Voice:
Mapping the Mobile Marketplace."1 The report
summarizes a number of Town Hall sessions convened
over a two day period to give regulators an opportunity for
in-depth examination of topics relating to mobile or M-commerce
and address specific consumer protection issues. The report
also presents key staff findings and recommendations.
The Town Hall sessions examined the contours
of the Domestic mobile marketplace, including: 1) factors
affecting adoption of mobile applications; 2) commercial uses
of mobile messaging and consumer protection issues raised
by premium rate and unsolicited text messages; 3) the distinction
between personal computers and mobile devices, and how the
move from the former to the latter is creating both powerful
tools and risks for consumers; 4) location-based technologies
and services, and pertinent statutory, self-regulation and
best practices for protecting related privacy concerns, as
well as the challenge of providing meaningful notice and consent;
5) the current and future status of mobile advertising and
marketing and related privacy concerns; 6) self-regulatory
and legal constraints on mobile advertising targeting children;
7) best practices for evaluating complaints, dispute resolution
and adequacy of disclosures about the cost of mobile services;
and 8) security threats. Other topics addressed in the sessions
included understanding the mobile ecosystem, and applications
shaping modern mobile technology, as well as mechanisms for
managing mobile devices, including accessibility controls
and the ability of consumers to block or limit certain functions.
The Agency flagged three areas that
might be ripe for regulation. They involve:
Disclosures about the cost
of mobile service. The
report notes that industry best practices often lack transparency
and are poorly understood by consumers. The staff recommended
improved education within the industry about these practices
along with frequent monitoring for compliance purposes and
to update knowledge of best practices.
Unwanted or harmful mobile
text messages. The FTC will continue working with law
enforcement to monitor unwanted mobile text messages, malware
and spyware. The FTC admonished that multiple players in
the mobile ecosystem, including carriers, manufacturers,
software providers as well as users bear responsibility
for the security of personal information in their handsets.
Privacy challenges related
to childrens use of smart phones for Internet access.
The report identifies several areas of concern involving
the use of mobile devices by children, including functionality
for limiting their ability to make purchases, the use of
mobile devices for cyber-bullying, and ways to limit classroom
disruption by mobile devices. The FTC also announced that
it will expedite the regulatory review of the Childrens
Online Privacy Protection Rule2 to ascertain
whether it should modified to address rapid changes in the
mobile marketplace. This review was originally slated for
2015, but will now commence in 2010 with opportunity for
extensive public comment.
As with the agencys behavioral
advertising proceeding,3 this report sends a
strong signal that the FTC will closely monitor consumer
protection, including security, privacy, and the business
practices of carriers, applications and device manufacturers,
and other entities operating in the mobile marketplace.
It is very likely that the ubiquity of mobile computing
and communications in all aspects of social, economic, individual
and political life will result in increased demand for legislation
and/or regulation. Accordingly, mobile service providers,
device and applications manufacturers, and content providers
should continuously monitor industry best practices in the
areas that are the topic of this report to ensure that their
privacy policies are in compliance with industry best practices,
applicable FTC principles, and even potentially applicable
regulations promulgated by other agencies.4
We are available to assist you in reviewing
your privacy policies and data security programs for compliance
with the principles set forth in this report as well as
applicable industry best practices. We are also available
to monitor further developments at the FTC that could affect
companies offering mobile services, applications and devices
as well as related proceedings at the FCC, and to provide
counsel companies about appropriate future compliance measures.
For additional information please contact
Karen Neuman at kneuman@slrno.com
or Judith St. Ledger-Roty at judithslr@stlro.com.
|
|
|