Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

FTC and FCC "Do Not Call" Telemarketing Rules Advance

474

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
474
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  1. January 2003 FTC and FCC “Do Not Call” Telemarketing Rules Advance Proposed new limits on telemarketers advancing at both One business-friendly provision of the FTC’s new rules is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal an “established business relationship” exemption, enabling Communications Commission (FCC) received almost universal businesses to call their existing customers if they have support at a House Commerce Committee briefing held in early done business with them in the previous 18 months, even if January. The briefing by FTC Chairman Timothy Muris set the the customer’s phone number appears on the “do not call” list. stage for dramatic changes in the telemarketing rules, including Companies are also free to call consumers who have made the initiation of a national “do not call” program, and more inquiries or submitted applications within the previous three specific limits on marketers’ calling practices. months. Authority Needed The FTC’s “do not call” rule does not preempt state telemarketing laws. The agency is attempting to harmonize In December 2002, the FTC amended the Telemarketing Sales its national provisions with the 27 existing state “do not call” Rule (TSR) to create a national “do not call” registry where regimes, but, as yet, methods for reconciling differences consumers can sign up to block many telemarketing calls. between federal and state laws have not been explained. The Congressional briefing was held to garner support for the explicit authorization needed to allow the FTC to collect fees New Marketer Requirements from telemarketers to support the program. Congressional The amended TSR rule imposes new requirements on sources predict the authorization will be granted as soon telemarketers in addition to complying with the “do not call” as February, enabling the “do not call” registry to become rule. Sixty days after the new TSR is published in the Federal operational by fall 2003. Register, telemarketers using predictive dialer technology must House Commerce Committee members also supported the limit the number of “abandoned calls” (e.g., calls resulting in similar FCC proposals, while expressing their preference that “dead air”) to 3 percent per day per campaign. In addition, the FTC and FCC adopt consistent rules and a “consumer sellers must follow specific procedures for obtaining customer friendly” enrollment procedure. The FCC rules currently require billing authorization. A year after Federal Register publication of a company to honor a consumer’s request not to be called. the final rule, telemarketers also must begin transmitting caller- ID information to consumers with every call. Telemarketers New FTC Rule Features should begin now to plan for meeting these obligations. ✦ Under the FTC’s new “do not call” rule, consumers could block For more information, please contact John Kamp (202.719.7216 interstate telemarketing calls by commercial entities, except by or jkamp@ wrf.com) or Amy Worlton (202.719.7458 or banks, telecommunications common carriers and insurance aworlton@wrf.com). companies which are not subject to FTC jurisdiction. Were the FCC to adopt its own new rule, it could reach additional industries. Also in This Issue The FCC may add a national “do not call” registry to its current company-specific requirement, which—like the The Third Annual Privacy & Data Security Summit ...... 2 FTC’s registry—would allow consumers to opt-out from many Online Jurisdictional Law companies’ telemarketing in a single stroke. Dual registries Begins to Crystallize in U.S., But… ............................ 3 overseen by the FTC and FCC could create duplicative and Efforts to Stop Unsolicited Email even confl icting obligations. During the briefing session, Increase Across the Board......................................... 6 FTC Chairman Muris did not clarify how the two agencies WRF Expands Employment & Labor Practice .............. 7 are coordinating their actions to minimize such risks. The Speaker’s Corner ............................................... 8 © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP ✦ Washington, DC ✦ Northern Virginia ✦ www.wrf.com
  2. February 26-28, 2003 The Third Annual HILTON WASHINGTON Privacy & Data Security Summit Implementing & Managing Privacy www.privacyassociation.org in a Complex Environment 1-800-266-6501 SPONSORED BY SPECIAL TRACKS & FEATURES For a full conference brochure, go to ■ Privacy Professional Boot Camp ■ HR/Internal Privacy www.privacyassociation.org ■ Consumer Marketing ■ Financial Services/ ■ International Insurance ■ Security ■ Healthcare Register Now! 3: PAYMENT OPTIONS Please enclose payment with your registration and return it to the 1: PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING conference registrar at the address below, or fax your credit card NAME OF REGISTRANT payment to 215-545-8107. TITLE ❏ Check/money order enclosed NAME OF ORGANIZATION (checks payable to Privacy & Data Security Summit) ❏ Credit card: ❏ American Express ❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard ❏ Work Address or ❏ Home Address (List only preferred mailing address) MAILING ADDRESS TOTAL $ C ITY STATE Z IP ACCOUNT NO. DAYTIME PHONE ( ) FAX ( ) NAME OF C ARDHOLDER EMAIL E XP. DATE / ❏ SPECIAL DISABILITY NEEDS SIGNATURE OF C ARDHOLDER 2: REGISTRATION FEES REGISTRANT SIGNATURE Preconference Only ❏ $295 Please return your application and full payment by fax: 215-545-8107 Conference Only (does not include Preconference): Or mail this form with correct tuition fee (U.S. funds) to: IAPP/Association Co-Sponsor Conference Office, 1211 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 Members Registration Non-Member Registration Telephone registrations must be confirmed by fax or email. I am a member of the following We cannot guarantee your attendance unless payment is received co-sponsor association: with your registration. ❏ Thru Feb. 7, 2003 $895 ❏ Thru Feb. 7, 2003 $1095 FOR MORE INFORMATION: ❏ After Feb. 7, 2003 $995 ❏ After Feb. 7, 2003 $1195 Call 800-266-6501 or send email to info@privacyassociation.org. Visit our website at www.privacyassociation.org. ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP OPTION: TAX DEDUCTIBILITY: Expenses of training, including tuition, travel, lodging and For an additional $150, join the International Association of Privacy meals, incurred to maintain or improve skills in your profession, may be tax Professionals (Regular membership: $249) deductible. Consult your tax advisor. Federal Tax ID: 91-1892021 CANCELLATION POLICY: Registration fees are not refundable, ❏ Yes, add $150 to my non-member registration. I’d like to become a but are transferable to a person in the same organization. member of IAPP. NOTE: This offer is for new members only; membership renewals are not eligible. PRIVACY STATEMENT: The International Association of Privacy Professionals will treat any information of its members and conference attendees as confidential and POST CONFERENCE BENEFIT: IAPP will provide an attendee list to the Sponsors, will not disclose it to any third party (other than in connection with IAPP Co-Sponsors & Exhibitors of the Privacy & Data Security Summit for their respective co-sponsored conferences) without consent. We do not rent, sell or otherwise use in 1 post conference mailing. If you do not wish to receive the information disclose personal information for non-conference related mailings. materials from such sponsors, co-sponsors & exhibitors, please check here: ❏ Privacy In Focus—January 2003 www.wrf.com © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP page 2
  3. Online Jurisdictional Law Begins to Crystallize in U.S., But… Businesses and other organizations increasingly rely upon mesh easily with the notion of cyberspace, where geography the Internet as a cornerstone of their sales, marketing and is of limited relevance. Over the past several years, U.S. operations. Because the effects of these operations may be courts have wrestled with the issue of what types of online felt far and wide, businesses must evaluate the risk that they activities might subject a defendant to the jurisdiction of a will be haled into court far from their conventional places distant state court. As recently as 1997, some federal district of business. Such jurisdictional issues may be especially courts determined that simply maintaining a website accessible significant for entities that publish or make available online within the forum state was sufficient to subject a defendant to content or provide carriage services for such content. Several the forum court’s jurisdiction. Superguide Corp. v. Kegan, 987 recent court decisions suggest that much of the uncertainty F.Supp. 481 (W.D. N.C. 1997); Inset Sys. v. Instruction Set, 937 relating to whether U.S. courts will exercise jurisdiction based F.Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996). With the introduction of new on Internet activities may be waning. However, international technology and new functionality, some U.S. courts went so concerns appear to be on the rise. far as to craft specific and distinct analytical frameworks for evaluating whether personal jurisdiction could be obtained Supreme Court Personal Jurisdiction in Internet cases. Jurisprudence The U.S. Supreme Court’s long-settled jurisprudence dictates Zippo Sliding Scale that a court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F.Supp. 1119 when two criteria are met. Where there is statutory authority (W.D. Pa. 1997), represents perhaps the best known and for the claim of jurisdiction, the court must determine whether most frequently cited case dealing with personal jurisdiction the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the Internet. Zippo involved a trademark infringement comports with constitutional due process. Due process claim filed against Zippo Dot Com, Inc. (ZDC), an requires that a defendant must have (1) minimum contacts Internet news service located in California. The Pennsylvania with the forum state such that (2) maintenance of the suit federal court ruled that it had specific personal jurisdiction over does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial ZDC based on ZDC’s forum contacts. The judge described justice.” See Int’ l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 a subsequently influentual “sliding scale” test to evaluate the (1945). A defendant need not be physically present within nature and quality of a defendant’s Internet activity: the state, but there must be “some act by which the defendant At the one end of the spectrum are situations where purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities a defendant clearly does business over the Internet…. within the forum state” thereby invoking the benefits and the At the opposite end are situations where a defendant protections of the forum state’s laws. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 has simply posted information on an Internet website U.S. 235, 254, (1958). which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions…. Personal jurisdiction may be of two types, specific or general. The middle ground is occupied by interactive websites Under the “specific” personal jurisdiction concept, a court where a user can exchange information with the host derives its authority because the plaintiff’s cause of action computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is arises directly from the defendant’s activity purposefully determined by examining the level of interactivity and directed towards the forum state. The court does not have commercial nature of the exchange of information jurisdiction to hear other claims against the same defendant that occurs on the website. that do not arise from such forum-directed activity. “General” personal jurisdiction may be asserted over a defendant in any 952 F.Supp. at 1124. forum where the defendant’s activities in the forum state have Reading Zippo in isolation, as some who seek to separate the been substantial, continuous and systematic. Helicopteros “new economy” from the “old” might be tempted to do, could Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984). lead one to overemphasize online activities and neglect other Where general personal jurisdiction is found, the court may important considerations. As Judge Frank Easterbrook of the adjudicate both forum-connected claims and claims that have U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has observed no connection to the forum state. with regard to examining law and cyberspace, any such effort that considers only cyberspace “is doomed to be shallow and Rise of the Internet Creates Uncertainty to miss unifying principles.” Several 2002 decisions dealing The notion of a business purposefully availing itself of the with the isolation issue of jurisdiction and online activities benefits and protections of a particular state’s law does not continued on page 4 Privacy In Focus—January 2003 www.wrf.com © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP page 3
  4. Online Jurisdictional Law Begins to Crystallize in U.S., But… continued from page 3 confront this issue head on and refocus the jurisdictional (3) that activity creates, in a person within the State, inquiry along traditional lines. a potential cause of action cognizable in the State’s courts. Purposeful Availment Remains the Touchstone Under this model, the court concluded that “a person who simply places information on the Internet does not subject Recent cases recognize that, in the United States at least, himself to jurisdiction in each State into which the electronic regardless of a website’s passivity or interactivity, the critical signal is transmitted and received.” The court reached that inquiry remains the same—did the defendant purposefully conclusion in part because such conduct would not generally direct activity at the forum state. See, e.g., Vinten v. Jeantot create a cause of action cognizable in courts located in the Marine Alliances, S.A., 191 F.Supp. 2d 642, 647 (D.S.C. state. Id. at 714. 2002). Courts have expressly recognized that the Internet is merely a channel or mode by which transactions and contacts The Fourth Circuit further reasoned that analyzing contacts can occur, and it is the nature and quality of the underlying through electronic media was similar to the “effects test” of exchanges that will determine whether the assertion of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In Calder v. Jones, the personal jurisdiction comports with due process. U.S. Supreme Court held that a court could constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant whose only As recently as January 13, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court material contact with the forum was to write a libelous chose not to hear, and thereby let stand, a decision of the story in his home state, directed at a resident of the forum, Fourth Circuit holding that maintenance of a website alone for a publication circulated in the forum and knowing that was not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the “the injury would be felt by the resident in the State in defendant in a Maryland federal court. In ALS Scan, Inc. which she lives and works.” The ALS Scan court concluded, v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. however, that merely maintaining a website accessible within 2002), the federal appeals court concluded that because the the forum did not rise to the level of the contacts found defendant, an Internet Service Provider, had not directed its sufficient in Calder. electronic activity specifically at any target in Maryland, and did not manifest an intent to engage in a business or some The Revell Decision other interaction in Maryland, the defendant’s contacts were Similarly, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently insufficient to support personal jurisdiction in Maryland. concluded that a plaintiff ’s residence in the forum, and Before analyzing the defendant’s contacts, the Fourth suffering of harm there, “will not alone support jurisdiction Circuit traced the historic limits on personal jurisdiction. It under Calder.” In Revell v. Lidov, 2002 WL 31890992 (5th recognized that assertions of jurisdiction were originally rooted Cir. (Tex.)), decided December 31, 2002, the U.S. Court of in the court’s power over the actual person of the defendant. Appeals reviewed a federal district court decision dismissing The court recognized that changes wrought by technology claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. In Revell, a former might complicate jurisdictional inquiries, but they could not associate director of the FBI sued nonresidents, an assistant supplant the fundamental principle that, regardless of the professor and a university, for defamation arising out of fact that business takes place in an increasingly boundaryless the professor’s authorship of an article that he posted on world, “a defendant may not be called upon [to defend in an Internet bulletin board hosted by the university. In such a land] unless he had the ‘minimal contacts’ with that examining the question of general personal jurisdiction, the State.” Id. at 711 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, court acknowledged that “[t]hough maintenance of a website 250-51 (1958)). is, in a sense, a continuous presence everywhere in the world,” The ALS Scan court then expressly adopted the Zippo model, merely posting an article about a resident of the forum was concluding that a state may, consistent with due process, not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the out-of- exercise judicial power over a person outside of the State state defendants. when that person: In addition to relying upon the Fourth Circuit’s ALS Scan decision, the Revell court pointed to recent defamation (1) directs electronic activity into the State decisions of the Fourth, Sixth and Third Circuit Courts of (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business Appeals, including Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic or other interactions within the State, and Federation, 23 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir. 1994); Remick v. Mandfredy, continued on page 5 Privacy In Focus—January 2003 www.wrf.com © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP page 4
  5. Online Jurisdictional Law Begins to Crystallize in U.S., But… continued from page 4 238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2001); and Young v. New Haven 2) The mere fact that a website is “interactive” will not be Advocate, No. 01-2340, 2002 WL 31780988, at *1 (4th Cir. enough. Instead, courts will use traditional analysis of the Dec. 13, 2002). The Fifth Circuit’s treatment of defamation nature and quality of the interactive contacts to determine and purposeful availment departed from a view of the Supreme whether “purposeful availment” by the defendant has been Court’s Calder decision espoused by the Tenth Circuit. See established. Burt v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 757 F.2d 242 (10th Cir. 1985) (applying Calder to support personal 3) New technology does not and should not change the way jurisdiction in Colorado where a Nebraska university doctor in which the due process implications of asserting personal had written unflattering and allegedly defamatory letters about jurisdiction are analyzed. the plaintiff in response to requests from Colorado hospitals, 4) Due process is not served where jurisdictional analysis despite the fact that the content focused on the plaintiff’s based on online activities makes unpredictable whether activities in Nebraska, not Colorado). a defendant will be found subject to personal jurisdiction According to the Fifth Circuit, Calder requires “both the harm based on the defendant’s primary conduct. to be felt in the forum and that the forum be the focal point of the publication.” Id. at 15. Further, the Fifth Circuit cited International Complications with approval the statement in ALS Scan that “application Unfortunately, for those organizations using the of Calder in the Internet context requires proof that the out- Internet, traditional minimum contacts analysis may of-state defendant’s internet activity is expressly directed at or not protect such organizations from having to defend themselves directed to the forum state.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). Taken across the globe in countries that have not adopted U.S. together these cases suggest that publication of something on concepts. A very recent decision from Australia demonstrates the Internet directed at the whole world, without specifically the challenges posed by a borderless electronic world. directing it at a specified forum, may not be enough to sustain In Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, 2002 H.C.A. 56 (Austl. personal jurisdiction under Calder. 12/10/02) (7 ECLR 1226, 12/18/02), The High Court of In the context of online activities, “purposeful availment” Australia justified the exercise of jurisdiction over an Internet perhaps is best described by the Supreme Court’s language in publisher in a defamation case based solely on accessibility Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985). of the publisher’s website in the forum. The decision, which Thus, one cannot purposefully avail oneself of “some forum in some respects appears to mimic early U.S. decisions, may someplace;” rather due process requires that, “the defendant’s cause serious alarm among those who publish online content conduct and connection with the forum state are such that and have assets worthy of pursuit by plaintiffs abroad. It also he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” demonstrates the basic tension between defamation law in the Id. Thus, at least in some of the U.S. federal judicial circuits, U.S. and overseas, as well as the fact that there is no shared “knowledge of the particular forum in which a potential rule as to whose law should prevail. plaintiff will bear the brunt of the harm forms an essential Gutnick and similar decisions have triggered calls for part of the Calder test,” because such knowledge is essential to international agreements on the issue of personal jurisdiction. determining whether a defendant could reasonably anticipate For now, however, U.S. businesses must recognize that foreign being haled into court in that forum. Revell, 2002 WL laws may differ from U.S. law and such differences merit 31890992 (5th Cir. 2002) (collecting authority). evaluation where businesses have assets abroad that could be Domestic Implications: Traditional reached by foreign governments or private litigants. ✦ Principles Still Reign Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP routinely counsels and litigates on The Supreme Court’s decision not to review ALS Scan, behalf of international and domestic organizations regarding all coupled with decisions such as Revell, together suggest the facets of online activity. For additional information about the following: personal jurisdiction issues discussed in this article, please contact Bruce L. McDonald (202.719.7014 or bmcdonal@wrf.com) or 1) In the United States, except for perhaps defamation or Gerard M. Stegmaier (202.719.3576 or gstegmai@wrf.com). similar claims, a defendant’s passive website, accessible in the forum, alone will not be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in the forum state. Privacy In Focus—January 2003 www.wrf.com © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP page 5
  6. Efforts to Stop Unsolicited Email Increase Across the Board Recent reports indicate that unsolicited commercial email, Virginia computer crime and anti-spam statute, Va. Code. or “spam,” makes up an increasing percentage of all email Ann. § 18.2-152.1 et seq., which authorizes statutory that Internet users receive. Filters and other technological damages of $25,000 for each day a spammer sends unsolicited tools continue to advance in sophistication, but spammers emails. The court accepted AOL’s theory of recovery, continue to find ways around these measures. ISPs also pursue awarding nearly $7 million and expanding the injunction in litigation against unsolicited emailers in an effort to deter some an October 25, 2002 decision, which remained under seal unwanted email. Finally, legitimate bulk emailers are taking until early December. steps to distance themselves from spam, by implementing industry guidelines and email seal programs. Efforts to Protect Legitimate Marketing In recognition of the public concern about unsolicited Technology Tools Fight Spam commercial email, the online marketing industry is taking For years, ISPs, businesses, and individual users have employed steps to distinguish legitimate marketing efforts from email filters in an effort to avoid the burden of dealing with unwanted spam. The online marketing industry trade group, unwanted spam. However, AOL, MSN, EarthLink and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), earlier this month other ISPs long ago recognized that there is no technological adopted new rules governing bulk email. The organization’s “silver bullet” that will filter all unwanted messages without “Ethical Email Guarantee” establishes guidelines for obtaining accidentally deleting desired email. AOL reports that its filters and using email lists. For example, the provider of an email block a half billion junk emails each day. New versions of list must be able to demonstrate that all the individuals on the AOL’s and MSN’s software include improved filtering and list agreed to be contacted by third parties, and must honor automated tools for users to notify the ISP of unsolicited all requests to “unsubscribe” from the list. email. Thus, technology remains an important component In addition, online marketers are attempting to generate greater of the overall battle against spam. consumer confidence in marketing emails by participating in Litigation Against Unsolicited Emailers an email certification program. For example, TRUSTe, one of the major privacy seal organizations, has initiated a “Trusted ISPs routinely employ litigation to fight spammers. A recent Sender” program. Under that program, a seal is placed on a $7 million verdict for AOL is the largest AOL has received marketer’s emails, indicating that the marketer complies with in its victories or settlements of nearly 20 cases involving certain responsible marketing practices. 100 different unsolicited emailers. AOL’s win comes several months after EarthLink won a $24.8 million default judgment Legislative Efforts to Limit Spam against an unsolicited emailer. While such victories can send For several years now, both Congress and state legislatures a strong message to spammers, the ISPs often are unable to have examined legislative proposals to address the problems collect the full amount of verdicts and settlements. with unsolicited commercial email. A number of states have AOL’s recently announced victory involved a company that passed laws restricting spam, but, thus far, Congress has had been sending mass unsolicited emails to AOL subscribers. not enacted a comprehensive federal law. However, as The defendant, CN Productions, transmitted hundreds of discussed in the November edition of Privacy In Focus, the millions of unsolicited emails to AOL subscribers, advertising FTC has stepped up its efforts to deal with spam through “adult” websites. The court awarded AOL nearly $7 million administrative action. in damages, but only after litigation in a case that consumed The Direct Marketing Association’s (DMA) recent change four years. AOL originally filed a complaint against CN in policy regarding spam legislation could clear the way for Productions in 1998. In a 1999 decision, the U.S. District passage of a federal law in the near future. In October 2002, Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded AOL the DMA announced its support for a relatively narrow nearly $2 million in damages, and issued an injunction federal law that would preempt the patchwork of state anti- prohibiting CN Productions and its president from emailing spam laws, and was directed specifically at fraudulent email, AOL subscribers. with forged headers. The DMA also would accept an “opt- Thereafter, the defendants persisted in sending unsolicited out” requirement that would give consumers the right to be commercial email to AOL users. AOL returned to court removed from email lists upon request. ✦ in 2001, claiming that CN Productions, its president and associated parties had sent more than 1 billion unsolicited For additional information, please contact John Kamp emails to AOL subscribers. AOL sought damages under a (202.719.7216 or jkamp@wrf.com). Privacy In Focus—January 2003 www.wrf.com © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP page 6
  7. Wiley Rein & Fielding Expands Employment & Labor Practice Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP is pleased to announce the continued wage and hour compliance, federal and state drug testing growth of its Employment and Labor Law practice with the requirements, harassment, privacy and the 1964 Civil addition of two new partners, Garen E. Dodge and Todd A. Rights Act. Mr. Dodge has been called on frequently to Bromberg. Messrs. Dodge and Bromberg were formerly with assist companies in establishing workplace substance abuse the Washington, DC office of Littler Mendelson. programs. Early in his career, he served at the Department of This expansion marks the second time in the past year that the Labor working for appeals judges. He earned his B.A. summa firm has added lateral strength in the Employment & Labor cum laude at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay; and his area. In mid-2002, WRF brought in three other lawyers from J.D. at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of Gardner Carton. Overall, the firm has over a dozen attorneys William & Mary. practicing in this important field. Mr. Dodge will Co-chair the Mr. Bromberg has more than 10 years of litigation and practice along with Rodney H. Glover, a seasoned litigator. regulatory experience, involving a variety of federal WRF’s Managing Partner Richard E. Wiley commented: employment-related statutes, including the Americans with “We are highly pleased to have these two very able and Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, experienced employment and labor lawyers joining our Title VII, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Fair existing team. Garen and Todd bring an added client base Labor Standards Act. He also has handled constitutional and also impressive experience, assuring our clients the best claims arising under the Equal Protection, Free Speech and legal services possible.” Due Process clauses, as well as traditional labor matters and trade secret protection. Mr. Bromberg has practiced in city, Mr. Dodge has nearly two decades of labor and employment state and federal administrative and judicial forums and has experience, focusing on legislative and regulatory issues, tried both jury and bench trials. He earned his B.A., with workplace discrimination, substance abuse, and occupational honors, from Oberlin College and his J.D. from Benjamin safety and health matters. He has advised clients in a wide N. Cardozo School of Law. ✦ variety of labor, employment, privacy and discrimination matters, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Mr. Dodge can be contacted at 202.719.7388 or gdodge@wrf.com, the Fair Labor Standards Act. He has published books and and Mr. Bromberg at 202.719.7357 or tbromberg@wrf.com. numerous articles on employment-related issues, such as Are You Interested in the Latest Developments in the Wireless Industry? Wireless Watch, published by WRF’s renown Communications Group, is a quarterly report that watches the latest developments in wireless communications. The most recent issue includes “Seven Tips For Doing Business With The Federal Government.” An excerpt of the article is below: The federal government opportunities available for wireless contractors are potentially immense, particularly now given the emphasis on homeland security. Doing business with the federal government, however is different. In order to maximize potential sales and minimize possible liabilities, wireless contractors must be aware of and address some of the basic differences between federal and commercial customers. For the complete article and a list of the Seven Tips for Doing Business With the Federal Government, please visit http://www.wrf.com/publications/publication.asp?id=1041812182002. Subscribe to WRF’s Wireless Watch today at: http://www.wrf.com/newsletters.asp Privacy In Focus—January 2003 www.wrf.com © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP page 7
  8. The Speaker’s Corner WRF Attorneys regularly share their expertise at conferences and seminars around the country. Visit our website at www.wrf.com for additional information on these events. BCBSA Annual Compliance Institute February 13, 2003 Orlando, FL Kirk J. Nahra, Speaker, “Health Plans as Victims, Witnesses, and Perpetrators—All at the Same Time” ABA Health Law Section Emerging Issues Conference February 21, 2003 Miami, FL Kirk J. Nahra, Speaker, “HIPAA at the Finish Line—Problems, Conflicts and Enforcement” and “What Covered Entities Need to Know to Comply with HIPAA for Their Own Employee Benefit Plan” DIA 15th Annual Workshop on Marketing Pharmaceuticals— Defining the New Regulatory Paradigm February 25, 2003 New York, NY John F. Kamp, Speaker, “Non-Traditional Promotional Activities” Third Annual Privacy & Data Security Summit February 26-28, 2003 Washington, DC Kirk J. Nahra, Speaker, “Financial Services/Insurance Track: Privacy For the Insurance Industry— Problems Today, Expectations for Tomorrow” and “HIPAA for Employers Across All Industries” John F. Kamp, Moderator, “Annual Privacy Professional Roundtable” www.privacyassociation.org January PIF Contributors Thomas W. Brunner ....................................................... 202.719.7225..........................................................tbrunner@wrf.com John F. Kamp ................................................................. 202.719.7216..............................................................jkamp@wrf.com Bruce L. McDonald ........................................................ 202.719.7014........................................................ bmcdonal@wrf.com Kirk J. Nahra .................................................................. 202.719.7335.............................................................knahra@wrf.com Gerard M. Stegmaier ...................................................... 202.719.3576..........................................................gstegmai@wrf.com Amy E. Worlton.............................................................. 202.719.7458.......................................................... aworlton@wrf.com 1776 K Street NW ✦ Washington, DC 20006 ✦ (ph) 202.719.7000 ✦ (fax) 202.719.7049 7925 Jones Branch Drive ✦ Suite 6200 ✦ McLean, VA 22102 ✦ (ph) 703.905.2800 ✦ (fax) 703.905.2820 For past issues of WRF Newsletters, please visit www.wrf.com/newsletters.asp You are receiving this newsletter because you are subscribed to WRF’s Privacy In Focus. To sign up to receive this newsletter by email or to change the address of your current subscription, please visit www.wrf.com/newsletters.asp. To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to wrfnewsletters@wrf.com with “Remove: Privacy In Focus” in the subject line. This is a publication of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP providing general news about recent legal developments and should not be construed as providing legal advice or legal opinions. You should consult an attorney for any specific legal questions. © 2003 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP ✦ Washington, DC ✦ Northern Virginia ✦ www.wrf.com

×