From Apple's Privacy Battle to TikTok's Legal Woes: Navigating Ethical Ads and Workers' Comp Benefits in Today's Legal Landscape
The Allied Outsourcing
Medical Record Reviews | Virtual Assistance | Paralegal & Support | Legal Administrative & Secretarial Services
Navigating Legal Waters: TikTok Under Fire in US Courts?
On September 16, TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, argued against a U.S. law that might ban the app from January 19. The lawyer sought an injunction to prevent the law's implication and claimed it violates free speech. The Chinese own the short video app, which 170 million Americans use now. Daniel Tenny, the Justice Department lawyer, raises a public security concern as the extensive personal data of Americans used turns out to be a national security threat. He further added that one can manipulate the information that American users consume. Conversely, the TikTok lawyer, Andrew Pincus, mentioned that the app had not proven any risks to the U.S. government. He included that it violates constitutional protections, which include the First Amendment's safeguard against government restrictions on speech.?
Pincus expressed to the bench of judges, including Sri Srinivasan, Neomi Rao, and Douglas Ginsburg, that the law is unprecedented and could have significant implications, impacting the speech of 170 million Americans. The law prohibits app stores and hosting services from supporting TikTok unless ByteDance divests by a specified deadline.
What are other ways to avoid a ban?
The law obligates ByteDance to sell or divest the app’s U.S. assets by Jan 19, or, as decided, the app will be banned.? The measure was overwhelmingly supported in Congress and signed into law by President Biden in April. TikTok’s lawsuit overwhelmingly opposed this decision, citing that this law, which used Congress's dominance, could ban any website or newspaper under the veil of national security or force them to sell. Tenny tried to focus the judges' attention on the alterations seen in the code in thousands of frequencies every day that might go unnoticed and pose a significant threat to Americans' national security. Rao noted the lengthy review of TikTok's source code, raising concerns about verified disclosure.?
Source Link:?
Cash Strapped: Young Lawyers Facing Financial Challenges
The amount of loans taken by American students has crossed a staggering figure of $1.7 trillion. A survey organized by the American Bar Association (ABA) revealed that 75% of respondents had altered their future plans and ended up choosing roles in the private rather than the public sector. Also, around half of them had taken a debt of more than $100,000 that had significantly affected the course of their career progression. It also revealed that almost 68% of students and survey respondents reported incidences of depression, due to which they felt hopeless and struggled to make any financial investments or do any sort of retirement savings. This also included making any major life decisions, such as purchasing a home, marrying,` or having children.?
A major portion of these findings were in line with the survey done in the years 2020 and 2021 that was conducted in joint association with AccessLex Institute and the ABA's Young Lawyers Division. This has raised concerns regarding delays in marriage and life planning by young lawyers.?
What are hopes for any other further relief?
This was because income-based repayment plans must fully address the principal amount. The Biden administration plans A new repayment plan that aims to provide some relief to these young borrowers. The efforts are aimed at forgiving the debts of low and middle strata of these money borrowers, but the decision's halt complicated the situation.?
The sources also suggest a rise of more than $46,000 in debt balance, as reported in the case of a quarter of young lawyers. It also highlighted significant demographic variations where Hispanic and Black students taking loans were high.?
These young lawyers still would choose to opt for the legal profession or the same law school, as the data reflects 74% and 65%, respectively. The survey gives a holistic view of the dazzling law profession, the concurrent situation of student debts, and the mental well-being of young legal professionals.
Source Link:
Apple Faces Narrowed Lawsuit Over Data Privacy Issues
A significant development in the tech sector occurred when U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, in San Jose, California, limited a substantial case against Apple Inc. (AAPL.O). This lawsuit alleges that Apple infringed on the privacy rights of iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch users by collecting data through its apps, including the App Store, Apple Music, and Apple TV. Here's what you should be aware of regarding this unfolding legal conflict.
The Allegations
The essence of the legal action centers on Apple's data protection policies. Users of mobile devices assert that Apple breached their agreements and violated multiple privacy and consumer safeguard regulations. The plaintiffs argue that Apple guaranteed users that deactivating specific options would reduce the gathering, retention, and utilization of their information. Despite promises to the contrary, Apple allegedly continued to gather, store, and use user information. The case also implicates other tech giants like Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O) and Meta Platforms' Facebook (META.O), facing increased scrutiny and legal challenges over their data practices and consent procedures.
Judge Davila's Decision
In a comprehensive 39-page ruling released late Thursday, Judge Davila rejected almost all allegations tied to Apple mobile devices' "Allow Apps to Request to Track" feature. He observed that Apple had clarified to users that this feature pertained to "other companies' applications and websites." Consequently, it was deemed "unlikely" that an average person would think disabling this feature would mean they were revoking permission for Apple to gather data through its applications.
Nevertheless, the judge permitted specific allegations regarding the "Share [Device] Analytics" feature. Users reasonably claimed that by turning off this setting, they were rescinding their consent for Apple to collect their information. Judge Davila noted Apple's communication that users had the option to "completely disable the sharing of Device Analytics," suggesting that there was a reasonable assumption that no data collection would occur if this setting were deactivated.
Implications for Apple
Apple has defended its methods, asserting that it gathers information via the "Share [Device] Analytics" option to enhance its offerings. This information aids the organization in comprehending how its products are utilized and pinpointing possible problems that require resolution.
The decision to permit allegations concerning the "Share [Device] Analytics" option to proceed means that Apple must confront these accusations in legal proceedings. The outcome of this case could have considerable consequences for Apple and the broader technology sector, which is dealing with comparable legal obstacles.
Broader Context
This lawsuit is part of a broader trend of legal actions against major tech firms over data privacy issues, reflecting growing concerns from consumers and regulators about how personal data is handled. The evolving judicial landscape is trying to balance data-driven innovation with the need to protect privacy rights. The case, called In re Apple Data Privacy Litigation, is closely watched by industry analysts and privacy advocates. As it progresses, it will be crucial to see how Apple responds and what its impact is on future data privacy litigation.
Conclusion
The limitation of this legal action signifies an essential point in the continuing discussion surrounding data privacy. Although numerous allegations have been rejected, allowing a few to advance maintains the focus on Apple's data-gathering methods. This situation highlights the necessity for open dialogue and honesty about data privacy between technology firms and their consumers.
Stay tuned for more updates on this and other tech legal developments.
Source Link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-must-face-narrowed-privacy-lawsuit-over-its-apps-2024-09-27/
领英推荐
The Battle Over Competitive Keyword Ads: Ethical Dilemma or Savvy Marketing?
For years, you've seen billboards, social media promos, and TV spots by a local personal injury lawyer. Then, bam, you're hit by a bus. With a few broken bones and massive medical bills, you need legal representation fast. Because of all those ads, you think you know just whom to call.
But when you Google the lawyer's name, the top results are "sponsored" ads by other attorneys angling for your business. You must search for information on the lawyer or firm you're looking for, assuming you don't mistake the ads for the real thing.
The question now for courts and bar associations is whether such competitive keyword ads—where a search for Lawyer A yields ads for Lawyer B—are misleading or unethical. They allow lesser-known attorneys to piggyback on the reputations of their more prominent peers. Or is it just a sly but savvy way to attract new clients in the internet age?
As my Reuters colleague David Thomas reported last week, plaintiffs' giant Morgan & Morgan, which boasts more than 1,000 lawyers and claims to be the most prominent injury firm in the U.S., sued a would-be rival over its keyword advertising, alleging that the similarly named Morgan Law Group breached a 2020 settlement agreement not to use such tactics.
In recent years, partner Damien Prosser told me that Morgan & Morgan has sued more than 15 firms for using keyword ads linked to its name and has sent out "hundreds" of cease-and-desist letters. "It's truly the wild, wild West" of advertising, he said. Morgan Law Group did not respond to requests for comment.
Other lawyers are suing over keywords, too. In Colorado, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, known locally as "The Strong Arm," sued the Slocumb Law Firm, alleging the Alabama-based defendant used keyword advertising to trick potential Azar clients into hiring Slocumb instead. According to court papers, Azar claims Slocumb's ads included deceptive "click-to-call" links that connected would-be clients to operators who evaded questions about which firm had been reached. Neither Azar nor Slocumb responded to requests for comment. The case, which alleges violations of Colorado's consumer protection law, trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment, is headed for trial in January, according to the Pueblo County District Court docket.
A Google spokesperson told me that the company doesn't restrict the use of trademarks as keywords, though it does require advertisers to abide by local trademark laws and prohibits infringement. Ads that conceal or misstate information about the advertiser's business, product, or service are also not allowed, the spokesperson said. As for the cost of keyword ads, the short answer is it depends. Per Google, the company holds lightning-fast "ad auctions" for each Google search to decide which ads will appear for a specific query and in which order. Would-be advertisers set a bid telling Google Ads the maximum amount they're willing to pay for a click on their ad. The formula is complicated, but one thing is clear: Keyword ads are a lot cheaper than building name recognition via TV, radio, billboard, and other conventional advertising, which lawyers tell me can cost millions of dollars per year.
Aside from questions of legality—both the Morgan & Morgan breach of contract claim and Azar's allegations of consumer deception involve unusual fact patterns—there's a broader question for bar associations to consider: Is it ethical for lawyers to use competitive keyword ads in general?
Ohio and North Carolina say no. Purchasing another lawyer's name as a keyword "displays a lack of professional integrity," the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct concluded in 2021. Doing so is "designed to deceive" a consumer into selecting the advertising lawyer's website rather than the intended lawyer or firm. A handful of other bar associations, including New Jersey, Texas, South Carolina, and Florida, however, say the practice is allowed, provided it's clear the sponsored links are advertisements. There are no covert attempts to re-route the user to the advertising firm.
In Colorado, the state bar ethics committee considered the propriety of competitive keyword ads but failed to reach a consensus. They voted last year not to issue an advisory opinion one way or the other, committee member Charles Luce Jr. told me. A director at Fennemore Craig and frequent author on the impact of technology on legal ethics, Luce said he favors allowing the ads (provided they're truthful and not misleading), likening them to the Yellow Pages of yore. A consumer who leafed through the Yellow Pages searching for a particular lawyer would also see competitor display ads, who sometimes would pay extra for placement next to a rival. "Nobody back then screamed murder," Luce said.
He said that consumers today who search via Google are sophisticated enough to recognize sponsored links as ads. Indeed, Luce added, consumers might find it helpful to see promos from lawyers offering similar services as a way to comparison shop. He said that even if they accidentally click an ad, there's an easy solution: "Hit the back button."
However, fellow Colorado ethics committee member Jack Tanner, a director at Fairfield and Woods and lecturer on legal ethics, opposes using competitive keyword ads by lawyers as deceitful. "Why would you pay money to use somebody else's name?" Tanner asked in the search results. "You're paying for your competitor's name, hoping the consumer clicks on the first thing that pops up." To him, that demonstrates an intent to deceive. He told me it doesn't matter if the consumer falls for it. "The intent is enough."
Navigating Death and Funeral Benefits in Workers' Compensation
Employers occasionally encounter tragic outcomes due to workplace incidents, including life-threatening injuries. Though no sum of money can replace a cherished individual, it may be reassuring to understand that surviving family members are eligible for death and burial benefits by state or federal workers' compensation regulations. These compensation benefits can assist in covering medical expenses and funeral costs, compensate for lost income or salaries, and offer stability during a tough time.
Distinct Claims for Medical Costs and Death Benefits
If an employee sustains a job-related injury that ultimately leads to their passing after a period following the original incident, two distinct claims may need to be processed. Initially, the injured individual receives temporary total disability payments and all other medical compensation for expenses arising from the incident until their passing. A new death and funeral compensation claim is available for the beneficiaries after the employee's death. Grasping these separate claims is essential to ensure that all entitled benefits are obtained.
Duration and Amount of Death Benefits
The duration and amount of death benefits vary significantly across jurisdictions. Some states provide benefits for a set period, while others continue benefits until certain conditions are met, such as remarriage or reaching a specified age.
For example, in Arizona, a surviving spouse without children receives benefits until death or remarriage. If there are children, benefits are divided, with the spouse receiving a portion and the remainder split among the children until they reach adulthood or continue education. In Florida, death benefits are capped at $150,000, and payments cease upon remarriage or when children reach 18, extending to 22 if they are students or disabled.
Funeral and Burial Expenses
Funeral and burial expenses are typically provided as a lump sum, but the amount can vary dramatically depending on the jurisdiction. Some states cap these expenses at a few thousand dollars, while others, like Kentucky, offer up to $85,307. Under federal laws, such as the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, funeral benefits are fixed at $3,000, a rate unchanged since 1984.
Eligibility for Death Benefits
Eligibility for death benefits generally includes the surviving spouse and minor children. However, some states have broader criteria. In California, for instance, any person financially dependent on the deceased worker and living in the same household may qualify, including grandparents, siblings, and other relatives.
State-Specific Regulations and Federal Provisions
State laws dictate the specifics of death benefits. In Georgia, a surviving spouse can receive up to $290,000, with benefits ceasing upon remarriage or cohabitation. Indiana provides death benefits for up to 500 weeks, offering a lump sum upon remarriage. Meanwhile, Texas grants lifelong benefits to spouses of first responders, regardless of remarriage.
Under federal legislation, the situation is distinct, as it follows a unique regulatory framework that oversees claims made under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act. The partner of the deceased is entitled to 50 percent of the typical weekly earnings of the lost worker for as long as they live (or until they remarry), along with extra benefits for any dependent children. These benefits will undergo yearly modifications tied to the National Average Weekly Wage.
Conclusion
Under workers' compensation, systems are established to assist the dependents of a worker who dies while on the job. However, benefits and eligibility differ significantly among states and various federal jurisdictions. Understanding these laws is vital so survivors receive the correct benefits and support. Families can find financial stability amid their loss by navigating these systems carefully.
Source Link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/understanding-workers-compensation-death-benefits-2024-09-27/