Rolling Stone Sued For Text Messaging Spam

from the a-text-message-gathers-no-moss dept

Rolling Stone publisher, Wenner Media, has been hit with a class action lawsuit over spam text messages that were used to aggressively promote Rolling Stone, US Weekly and Men's Journal. Of course, it's not clear that this is actually illegal. The lawsuit is based on a law that forbids the automatic dialing of marketing phone calls to mobile phones, but it's not clear if that actually applies to SMS messages as well.

Filed Under: rolling stone, spam, text messages
Companies: wenner media

China Plans To Scan Text Messages For Unhealthy Content... Five Years After Announcing The Same Thing

from the it's-winter-reruns-everyone... dept

Apparently, it's time for reruns. The NY Times is reporting that China is now planning to start scanning text messages for "unhealthy content," which is defined as including any of various (secret) keywords supplied by the police. Now, given the recent ramp up in attention paid to China's censorship efforts, this might be interesting... if it hadn't been announced five years ago. This is what the NY Times wants us to pay for? I guess if they block off their content behind a paywall, no one would be able to search the archives of the NY Times to find out that that great paper had covered the story five years ago itself (though, a couple months after we wrote about it).

Filed Under: china, paywalls, reporting, scanning, text messages

Justice Department Finds No Problems With Text Message Prices

from the fair-enough dept

Every so often an article pops up here or there talking about how ridiculous text message prices are on a per-byte basis. Eventually one of those stories got politicians involved, and the Justice Department began an investigation. Thankfully, the inquiry has ended, and the Justice Department found no evidence of anything wrong. Looking at the pricing on a per-byte basis is pointless and mostly meaningless. Most people who use SMS text messages on any sort of regular basis have bulk plans included with their regular plan. The "list" prices are really a small part of the market. The fact that most of the operators raised prices is certainly not evidence alone of any kind of collusion. And if prices really get to be too ridiculous, then people will just start to move to alternatives. This seemed more like an investigation brought on for PR purposes because someone didn't like the way something was priced.

Filed Under: antitrust, text messages
Companies: doj

Court Says Personal Email From Work Can Still Be Protected Attorney-Client Communications

from the well-that's-interesting dept

We've seen plenty of cases where courts have said that an individual has no expectation of privacy on emails sent from work, and therefore cannot protect those emails. However, in an interesting new ruling (found via the EFF), a court found that personal emails sent from work computers can still be considered privileged and confidential as an attorney-client communication.

Of course, there's a bit more to this case that makes the facts a bit different and makes me wonder if it would apply in other circumstances. In this case, it dealt with a federal prosecutor who was fired, and is trying to claim that the firing was for his whistle-blowing. He was trying to access the emails of a US Attorney that he believes will reveal why he was fired. So it wasn't a case of a company trying to review the email (which is normally the case in these types of lawsuits). And, as such, it makes sense. The attorney-client privilege should be seen as one that has an incredibly high barrier. Any weakening of that privilege -- such as by saying that if you email your lawyer from work, it doesn't exist -- would be troubling. But what would be more interesting is what would happen in a lawsuit where it was the employer looking at the material. If a company has a regular program of recording and examining employee email (as many do), then how would the issue be resolved? It would seem that, in such circumstances, it would make a lot less sense to consider the content protected, since the employer is not asking for it, but already has access to it.

In related news, however, the Supreme Court will be hearing a case that looks at whether or not your text messages are private, even if sent from company mobile phones.

Filed Under: email, privacy, text messages, work

Mythbusters' Adam Savage Discovers Insane Roaming Fees: $11,000 iPhone Bill For A Few Hours Surfing

from the BUSTED dept

Every few months or so there's an article somewhere about an insane phone bill that someone gets because they took their phone out of the country without recognizing the insanity that is international roaming rates. This time, it appears to be Mythbusters co-host Adam Savage, who's been doing a bit of traveling lately. He was recently up in Canada, and used his iPhone to do a little web surfing. And now he got the bill. Apparently AT&T wants somewhere around $11,000 for Adam's surfing and have turned off his phone until he pays. Now there will be some who say that he should have read the fine print, but considering just how often these sorts of stories pop up, at some point it's worth noting that the fine print isn't working. And... even if you grant the "fine print" premise, it's hard for anyone to figure out how these international roaming rates make any sense whatsoever. They're so far off the charts as to be unbelievable.

Anyway... next week on Mythbusters... the insanity of mobile phone bills? Can we see Jamie and Adam try to decipher hidden fees, while Grant, Tory and Kari search for the elusive accurate mobile phone coverage map? Maybe Buster can figure out what the real limits are on unlimited data plans? Hmm... maybe not.

Filed Under: adam savage, data, international roaming, mythbusters, roaming, text messages
Companies: at&t

Court Says Anti-Telemarketing Law Covers Unsolicited Text Messaging

from the this-is-a-good-thing dept

Via Michael Scott we learn that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) also applies to unsolicited text messages. The TCPA covers certain kinds of commercial marketing over telephones, and has a rule against the use of "automatic telephone dialing systems," but it wasn't clear if text messaging was an automatic telephone dialing system. The court has now said yes.

Separately, the case looked at whether or not agreeing to a basic terms of service also represented "express consent" which is needed under the TCPA. In this case, the woman had purchased a ringtone, but did not believe she had consented to commercial text messages. In buying the ringtone, the woman agreed to an extremely broadly worded terms of service that was probably purposely designed by lawyers to cover a wide swath of potential other things -- such as allowing the company to let others market things to the user. The question was whether or not other companies, who purchased the phone number from the ringtone company, could then market to the woman. The court here finds that dubious as well, noting that "express consent" is "[c]onsent that is clearly and unmistakably stated," which the court feels was not the case here, since the consent was only for the ringtone company to market messages, not anyone else (even though the marketing company -- in this case Simon & Schuster -- noted that the text message was "powered by" the ringtone company): "Thus, Satterfield's consent to receive promotional material by Nextones and its affilliates and brands cannot be read as consenting to the receipt of Simon & Schuster's promotional material."

This ruling isn't the final say on the matter -- as the appeals court was just reversing a lower court's summary judgment, and telling the lower court that it needs to actually go further in paying attention to the case. However, the points raised above are certainly important ones that I imagine will start showing up in other cases as well. Finally, it's also worth pointing out that the defendant in this case is Simon & Schuster, rather than Nextones. This does raise some interesting questions. Simon & Schuster believed that it was purchasing the right to contact these phone numbers legitimately via a marketing company partnered with Nextones. It had no idea that the "agreement" may be faulty, but it may now be liable for breaking the law. If that moves forward, you would have to think that Simon & Schuster has an argument to sue either Nextones or the marketing company it worked with for misrepresenting the "explicit consent" on those numbers.

Filed Under: spam, tcpa, telemarketing, text messages