Photo of Jeffrey Neuburger

Jeffrey Neuburger

Subscribe to Jeffrey Neuburger's Posts

Jeffrey Neuburger is co-head of Proskauer’s Technology, Media & Telecommunications Group, head of the Firm’s Blockchain Group and a member of the Firm’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Group.

Jeff’s practice focuses on technology, media and intellectual property-related transactions, counseling and dispute resolution. That expertise, combined with his professional experience at General Electric and academic experience in computer science, makes him a leader in the field.

As one of the architects of the technology law discipline, Jeff continues to lead on a range of business-critical transactions involving the use of emerging technology and distribution methods. For example, Jeff has become one of the foremost private practice lawyers in the country for the implementation of blockchain-based technology solutions, helping clients in a wide variety of industries capture the business opportunities presented by the rapid evolution of blockchain. He is a member of the New York State Bar Association’s Task Force on Emerging Digital Finance and Currency.

 

Jeff counsels on a variety of e-commerce, social media and advertising matters; represents many organizations in large infrastructure-related projects, such as outsourcing, technology acquisitions, cloud computing initiatives and related services agreements; advises on the implementation of biometric technology; and represents clients on a wide range of data aggregation, privacy and data security matters. In addition, Jeff assists clients on a wide range of issues related to intellectual property and publishing matters in the context of both technology-based applications and traditional media.

Contact:Read more about Jeffrey Neuburger

During the 2016 election, certain Russian operatives used fake social media profiles to influence voters and also created bot accounts to add likes to and share posts across the internet.  And more recently, in January 2019, the New York Attorney General and Office of the Florida Attorney General announced settlements with certain entities that sold fake social media engagement, such as followers, likes and views.  Moreover, many of the social media platforms have had recent purges of millions of fake accounts.  Thus, it’s clear that bots and automated activity on social media platforms has been on everyone’s radar…including state legislators’ too.

Indeed, California passed a chatbot disclosure law (SB-1001) last September that makes it unlawful for persons to mislead users about their artificial bot identity in certain circumstances, and it is only now coming into effect on July 1st.  In essence, the purpose of law was to inform users when they are interacting with a virtual assistant or chatbot or automated social media account so that users could change their behavior or expectations accordingly.  Entities that may interact online or via mobile applications with their customers regarding commercial transactions via a chatbot on their own website or automated account on another platform should certainly take note of the new California law’s disclosure requirements.

UPDATE: On December 31, 2019, the Ninth Circuit released an amended opinion in Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., No. 17-17351 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2019). The case also involves competing providers of filtering software and issues concerning the scope of CDA §230(c)(2). In reversing the lower court’s dismissal of claims under the CDA, the Ninth Circuit held that “the phrase ‘otherwise objectionable’ does not include software that the provider finds objectionable for anticompetitive reasons.”

Three recent court decisions affirmed the robust immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. §230(c), for online providers that host third-party content: the Second Circuit’s decision in Herrick v. Grindr LLC, No. 18-396 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2019) (summary order), the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s opinion in Daniel v. Armslist, LLC, No. 2017AP344, 2019 WI 47 (Wis. Apr. 30, 2019),  and the Northern District of California’s decision in P.C. Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., No. 18-05409 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019).

This month, an Illinois district court considered another in the series of web scraping disputes that have been working their way through our courts.  In this dispute, CouponCabin, Inc. v. PriceTrace, LLC, No. 18-7525 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2019), CouponCabin alleged that a competitor, PriceTrace, scraped coupon codes from CouponCabin’s website without authorization and displayed them on its own website.

After discovering PriceTrace’s scraping activities, CouponCabin sent PriceTrace a cease and desist letter demanding that PriceTrace stop scraping data from CouponCabin’s website.  CouponCabin alleged that PriceTrace continued to access and scrape data from CouponCabin’s website even after the C&D letter was sent. As a result, CouponCabin brought several causes of action against PriceTrace, including claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), tortious interference and breach of contract.

The court found that CouponCabin’s C&D letter had revoked PriceTrace’s access to its site and that PriceTrace’s alleged continued access to the website plausibly stated a violation of the CFAA’s “unauthorized access” provision (18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)).  Ultimately, however, the court dismissed the CFAA claims with leave to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to plead the requisite amount of damage or loss as required to maintain a civil action under the CFAA.

“CouponCabin is simply alleging that PriceTrace was able to circumvent CouponCabin’s website security, with no allegation that such evasion impairs or harm the website. Absent allegation of impairment, CouponCabin has merely alleged that PriceTrace accessed CouponCabin’s website without authorization.”

UPDATE:  Both bills failed to be reported out of committee by March 28, 2019 and were not debated during this year’s legislative session.

In the wake of the Illinois Supreme Court decision that held that claimants need only allege a procedural violation to have standing to bring an action under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and the continued wave of BIPA-related litigation, the Illinois legislature is considering an amendment to BIPA that would strip the statute of its private right of action. SB2134, as currently written, would amend BIPA by deleting the private right of action and instead provide for enforcement under the Department of Labor (for violations concerning employment-related biometric data collection) or generally by the state attorney general under the state’s consumer protection statute. The end result would be a statute similar to Texas and Washington’s biometric privacy bills which may only be enforced by the respective state attorney general. [Note: There is also another BIPA amendment pending, HB3024, which would expand the definition of “biometric identifier” to include “an electrocardiography result from a wearable device” in an effort to keep up with the latest technologies].

Senators Brian Schatz (D) and Roy Blunt (R) recently introduced S.847, the “Commercial Facial Recognition Privacy Act of 2019,” a bill that would, subject to certain important exceptions,  generally prohibit the commercial use of facial recognition technology to identify and track consumers without consent. The bill, as drafted would place limitations on the third-party sharing of collected faceprint data, as well as require covered entities to meet certain minimum data security standards. As this bill wends its way through Congress (it has been referred to the Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation), it is worth watching because it is a bipartisan bill with a narrow scope that has garnered the early conceptual support of Microsoft and other technology companies.

In a recent blog post, we wrote about how the Second Circuit found the arbitration clause in a web service’s terms and conditions unenforceable because the user did not have reasonable notice of the terms that were communicated via a hyperlink in a post-sale email. In contrast, a New York district court recently upheld an arbitration clause in Coinbase’s account registration process and granted its motion to compel arbitration concerning claims brought by a user (Sultan v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 18-934 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2019)).

This case sheds further light on the do’s and don’ts of online electronic contracting and the enforceability of app-based terms and conditions. The decision reinforces the point that for purposes of establishing a binding agreement with a user – particularly in the context of a mobile app – simplicity and clarity of the user interface is desired. And, in particular, this case reinforces the point that has been illustrated in many cases before that the design of user registration pages should be done with the input of legal analysis as to likely enforceability.

In Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. 17-2474, 2019 WL 149628 (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2019), the Second Circuit affirmed a ruling that denied a web service’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the user did not have reasonable notice of the arbitration provision contained in the terms and conditions that were communicated via a hyperlink in a post-sale email.

File this latest opinion declining to enforce a service’s terms under Crowded Interface, Unclear Prompts and Muddled Process.

While the court recognized that a party has a duty to read a contract, it stressed that this does not morph into a duty to “ferret out contract provisions when they are contained in inconspicuous hyperlinks,” particularly where, as in this case, the user was presented with multiple documents, each containing different sets of terms. This dispute was reminiscent of a Second Circuit case we wrote about in 2012, where the court held that a buy now-agree later process did not provide sufficient notice to consumers of an arbitration provision contained in the post-sale terms.

In a long-awaited decision, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its ruling in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Ill. Jan. 25, 2019), on whether a person “aggrieved” by a violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) must allege some actual injury or harm beyond a procedural violation to have standing to bring an action under the statute.  Since the Court took the appeal in May 2018, businesses have been waiting for the answer to this important question, as the robust wave of Illinois biometric privacy suits against Illinois-based employers and other businesses continued apace and several Illinois courts issued disparate interpretations about what it means to be “aggrieved” under the statute.

In a disappointment to many of the defendants in pending cases, a unanimous Court in Rosenbach reversed the appellate court and ruled that an individual does not have to plead an actual injury or harm, apart from the statutory violation itself, in order to have standing to sue under BIPA. The outcome was not a complete surprise, as previous courts (such as a California federal court and an Illinois appellate court) had ruled or expressed in dicta that mere technical violations of BIPA were sufficient under the statute.

Yesterday, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed an unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California against the operator of the popular Weather Channel app (“TWC app”) for allegedly failing to conspicuously disclose to users that the TWC app collects and shares users’ mobile geolocation data. (People v. TWC Product and Technology, LLC (Cal. Super., L.A. County)).  In essence, the suit alleges that the TWC app mines users’ precise geolocation data after receiving permission to gather location information to provide “personalized local weather data” without also adequately disclosing that the app also packages this data trove for advertising and analytics services unrelated to weather reporting. The City is seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties under state law for this alleged unfair business practice.  Feuer held a press conference today further detailing the State’s position in this lawsuit and expressed his hope that this case would spur litigation in other jurisdictions and legislation on the issue.