A New Jersey federal court ruled that a class action plaintiff may assert a claim against the defendant company’s Director and General Manager (“Manager”) for personal liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) .
Continue reading “TCPA Ruling: Personal Liability of Defendant’s Director”
A California federal court ruled that a text asking a patient to rate the doctor – sent minutes after the examination by a company that contracts with the health care provider to send Patient Satisfaction Surveys – does not alone satisfy an inference that the text was sent by an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) within the definition of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). Continue reading “TCPA Ruling: Text Asking Patient To Rate The Doctor”
A federal court ruled that a fax sent by a pharmacy benefit manager (“PBM”) to healthcare providers notifying recipients of changes to insured parties’ coverage for prescriptions – the fax mentioned the PBM’s business but did not promote any products or services – did not constitute an “advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). The court applied the “commercial nature” test for a TCPA advertisement. Continue reading “TCPA Ruling: Health Insurance “Update” Fax Is Not A TCPA Advertisement”
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs – digital assets which are not traded on exchanges, but instead are tokens which represent the ownership of a digital file (for example, a photo or digital art)) have exploded onto the digital asset ‘scene’ over the last 18 months or so. They are generally (but not always) built on the Ethereum blockchain. NFTs are bought and sold using cryptocurrency, but not traded on exchanges. Instead, they are purchased through specialist third party auction sites or sold/transferred privately.
The speed of mass NFT adoption has created significant opportunity (in the wake of the increase in value of NFTs, and also allowing content creators to monetise their services by tokenising art and music) but also exposed potential for the system to be exploited.
To read the full text of this blog post by Duane Morris attorney Chris Recker, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
We are now starting to see a variety of cryptocurrency related frauds appearing before the English Court. Following the decision in AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm) (where an insurer was granted a proprietary injunction as part of its strategy to recover a ransomware payment which had been negotiated and paid in Bitcoin) the English Court has dealt with several cases relating to cryptocurrency.
To read the full text of this blog post by Duane Morris attorney Chris Recker, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
A webinar replay of “Privacy Issues in Cross-Border Litigation” is now available.
Duane Morris is hosting the Data Privacy and Security Landscape: Legal Developments in the United States and Beyond Webinar Series. The second session, “Privacy Issues in Cross-Border Litigation,” takes place June 30, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern / 5:30 p.m. BST.
For more information and to register, please visit the event website.
A webinar replay of the Data Privacy and Security Landscape: Legal Developments in the United States and Beyond Webinar Series session, “Understanding Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act,” is now available.
Duane Morris is hosting the Data Privacy and Security Landscape: Legal Developments in the United States and Beyond Webinar Series. The first session, “Understanding Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act,” takes place May 25, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern.
For more information and to register, please visit the event website.
Over two years after hearing oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals finally issued an opinion in Gil v. Winn-Dixie, Case No. 17-13467, overturning the Florida federal district court’s finding that the grocery store chain violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by having an inaccessible website. In the 67-page decision, the Court of Appeals held that “websites are not places of public accommodation” under the ADA and that the Winn-Dixie website was not an “intangible barrier” to goods, services, privileges and advantages of Winn-Dixie’s physical stores.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
