Privacy Plaintiffs Lack Standing Against NBA 2K15’s Face-Scanning Technology

30 11 2017

This is a putative class action lawsuit against Take-Two, the video game publisher. Plaintiffs allege that the “MyPlayer” feature on NBA 2K15 violated Illinois’ biometric information privacy statute. The feature allowed players to upload a face-scan and then use a version of that scan as their avatar in certain multiplayer games. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Take-Two (1) failed to obtain consent; (2) disseminated biometric data without consent; (3) failed to provide details regarding the purpose or term of storage or use of the information, or an applicable retention schedule; and (4) failed to comply with appropriate security measures by transmitting the scans via standard wireless connections.

The district court dismissed on Article III standing grounds. The Second Circuit affirms.

Case citation: Santana v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2017 WL 5592589 (2d Cir. No. 21, 2018)

more

Related posts:

 

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/11/privacy-plaintiffs-lack-standing-against-nba-2k15s-face-scanning-technology.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Judge: EFF’s “Stupid Patent of the Month” clearly protected by Constitution

30 11 2017
A federal judge in California has ruled in favor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation after the organization was recently sued over its “Stupid Patent of the Month” blog posts. As a result, the advocacy group is not required to remove a recent post simply because an Australian patent entity (often called “trolls”) doesn’t like it.

The case began back in April 2017 when EFF countersued an Australian company that it previously dubbed as a “classic patent troll” in a June 2016 blog post entitled: “Stupid Patent of the Month: Storage Cabinets on a Computer.”

In 2016, that company, Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. (GEMSA), managed to get an Australian court to order EFF to remove its post—but EFF did not comply. In January 2017, Pasha Mehr, an attorney representing GEMSA, further demanded that the article be removed and that EFF pay $750,000. EFF still left the post up and then sued regarding the Australian court’s injunction.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/eff-need-not-remove-stupid-patent-post-about-australian-troll-judge-finds/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal on Standing Grounds of Biometric Privacy Suit over Videogame Facial Scan Feature

30 11 2017

With the flood of Illinois biometric privacy suits lodged against employers in recent months, and multiple biometric privacy suits against social media and other mobile platforms currently pending over the use of photo tagging functions, 2017 has been a busy year in this area.  In a notable circuit court level ruling this week, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Illinois biometric privacy claims against a videogame maker related to a feature in the NBA 2K videogame series that allows users to scan their faces and create a personalized avatar for in-game play. (Santana v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., No. 17-303 (2nd Cir. Nov. 21, 2017) (Summary Order)).

Although the court remanded the case to give plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint, the dismissal is still a resonant victory for Take-Two and demonstrates that the Article III standing requirements under Spokeo can be an important limitation on claims based on bare procedural violations of the notice and consent provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 Ill. Comp Stat. 14/1 (“BIPA”).

more


The content in this post was found at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/11/28/appeals-court-affirms-dismissal-on-standing-grounds-of-biometric-privacy-suit-over-videogame-facial-scan-feature/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



YouTube Defeats Defamation Claim in ‘Remove-and-Relocate’ Case–Bartholomew v. YouTube

12 11 2017

YouTube has been sued numerous times for “removing-and-relocating” videos it thinks were promoted by spam. When it does a remove-and-relocate, YouTube takes down the video, discloses at the original URL that “This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service” with a link to YouTube’s “Community Guidelines Tips” page, and then allows the reuploading of the video at a new URL. The relocation of the video kills the existing comments, resets the view counter, and breaks any inbound marketing links, so it can vex uploaders–enough to occasionally make them litigious.

Some of the legal friction comes from YouTube’s imprecise disclosure about the removal. In the cases where YouTube suspected spamming to promote the video, YouTube didn’t technically remove the video because of “its content.” I still don’t understand why YouTube didn’t immediately fix this language to make it more general. Despite the language’s imprecision, the litigant’s real beef typically is with YouTube’s decision to remove the video, not the disclosure about the removal, and I think YouTube should have the right to police its premises as it sees fit.

Bartholomew experienced a remove-and-relocate.

more

Case citation: Bartholomew v. YouTube, LLC, 2017 WL 4988177 (Cal. App. Ct. Nov. 2, 2017). Superior court ruling.

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/11/youtube-defeats-defamation-claim-in-remove-and-relocate-case-bartholomew-v-youtube.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Judge spanks Mugshots.com hard for charging for photo removal

12 10 2017

Websites that publish mug shots and charge for their removal have defeated one lawsuit after the other, claiming First Amendment protection. But that defense to this shady industry may be about to burst. That’s because a federal judge, ruling on a lawsuit by several arrestees suing Mughshots.com, just approved a novel class-action. It’s one that takes legal advantage of the site’s practice of displaying advertising links to paid removal services that the lawsuit claims are owned by Mugshots.com.

US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of Chicago didn’t go so far as to say this vile practice amounted to extortion, as alleged. Instead, she ruled (PDF) that this likely amounted to a violation of the arrestees’ right of publicity because the site was using the mug shots as actual advertisements for the paid removal service.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/mugshot-website-must-face-class-action-for-charging-to-remove-photos/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.