Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Cablevision For Depriving People Of Fox On TV

from the oh-please dept

It seems the whole retransmission fight in NY between Cablevision and Fox gets sillier by the day. After Fox accused Cablevision of pointing people to websites with unauthorized streams of various sporting events, Cablevision announced that it would reimburse anyone who ordered Major League Baseball's internet playoff package to watch the World Series (legally) over the internet. Apparently, that's not enough for some people, who have filed a silly class action lawsuit against Cablevision for not discounting their bills during the Fox fight. They're claiming this was a breach of contract, because it represents a "material change" to the service. I can understand why people are annoyed, but this certainly feels like yet another class action lawsuit which is just about lawyers trying to squeeze money out of a company, rather than any serious public concern. Adding weight to that claim is the fact that they're asking for a whopping $450 million -- saying that the customers are seriously harmed by missing Fox's "distinctive viewpoint in the political speech arena... just days before a critical mid-term election." Oh and, of course, being deprived of The Simpsons, Glee, and football and baseball are seriously damaging to the psyche. Or something like that. Update: Surprise, surprise. Now it's coming out that the lawyer behind the lawsuit has long term connections with News Corp. going all the way back to when Murdoch first set up the Fox Network.

Filed Under: class action, fox, tv
Companies: cablevision, fox, news corp.

More And More Lawsuits Filed Against Google Over Street View WiFi Slurping

from the evidence? dept

We've already covered one class action lawsuit filed against Google for its WiFi data slurping activities, and it appears that lots and lots of lawyers are trying to jump into the game. Eric Goldman has a list of at least seven such class action lawsuits that have been filed already. While we agree that Google's actions were bad, and do deserve some scrutiny, I find it difficult to believe these lawsuits can get anywhere. In the first one that we covered, we noted that one of the complaints was from a woman who sent confidential company data via her own, unsecured WiFi access point, and we couldn't figure out how that was Google's fault.

The real issue, though, is that it will be nearly impossible (if not impossible) for anyone in any of these lawsuits to first show that any of their specific data was recorded by Google, and secondly, that any harm came to them because of it. And, as we've noted multiple times, the courts seem to want to (a) see actual privacy being breached, rather than theoretical privacy being breached and (b) see actually harm come to the plaintiffs from those breaches. Without either of those things, it's hard to see these lawsuits getting very far.

As Goldman notes, not at all sarcastically:

It's remarkable that these lawyers were able to conclude to their satisfaction that their named plaintiffs in fact had their payload data captured in the process--presumably by confirming that payload data was actually being transmitted at the precise time the cars drove by. I'm not sure how I would research this issue sufficient to satisfy my Rule 11 obligation, but these attorneys surely didn't just assume Google captured their clients' payload data...did they?

Filed Under: class action, harm, lawsuits, wifi
Companies: google

Class Action Lawsuit Launched Against Google, Because Some Woman Didn't Secure Her Own WiFi

from the blame-game dept

Late last week, of course, Google 'fessed up to the fact that it was accidentally collecting some data being transmitted over open WiFi connections with its Google Street View mapping cars. As we noted at the time, it was bad that Google was doing this and worse that they didn't realize it. However, it wasn't nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. First of all, anyone on those networks could have done the exact same thing. As a user on a network, it's your responsibility to secure your connection. Second, at best, Google was getting a tiny fraction of any data, in that it only got a quick snippet as it drove by. Third, it seemed clear that Google had not done anything with that collected data. So, yes, it was not a good thing that this was done, but the actual harm was somewhat minimal -- and, again, anyone else could have easily done the same thing (or much worse).

That said, given the irrational fear over Google collecting any sort of information in some governments, this particular bit of news has quickly snowballed into investigations across Europe and calls for the FTC to get involved in the US. While one hopes that any investigation will quickly realize that this is not as big a deal as it's being made out to be, my guess is that, at least in Europe, regulators will come down hard on Google.

However, going to an even more ridiculous level, the class action lawyers are jumping into the game. Eric Goldman points us to a hastily filed class action lawsuit filed against Google over this issue. Basically, it looks like the lawyers found two people who kept open WiFi networks, and they're now suing Google, claiming that its Street View operations "harmed" them. For the life of me, I can't see how that argument makes any sense at all. Here's the filing: Basically, you have two people who could have easily secured their WiFi connection or, barring that, secured their own traffic over their open WiFi network, and chose to do neither. Then, you have a vague claim, with no evidence, that Google somehow got their traffic when its Street View cars photographed the streets where they live. As for what kind of harm it did? Well, there's nothing there either.

My favorite part, frankly, is that one of the two people involved in bringing the lawsuit, Vicki Van Valin, effectively admits that she failed to secure confidential information as per her own employment requirements. Yes, this is in her own lawsuit filing:

Van Valin works in the high technology field, and works from her home over her internet-connect computer a substantial amount of time. In connection with her work and home life, Van Valin transmits and receives a substantial amount of data from and to her computer over her wireless connection ("wireless data"). A significant amount of the wireless data is also subject to her employer's non-disclosure and security regulations.

Ok. So your company has non-disclosure and security regulations... and you access that data unencrypted over an unencrypted WiFi connection... and then want to blame someone else for it? How's that work now? Basically, this woman appears to be admitting that she has violated her own company's rules in a lawsuit she's filed on her behalf. Wow.

While there's nothing illegal about setting up an open WiFi network -- and, in fact, it's often a very sensible thing to do -- if you're using an open WiFi network, it is your responsibility to recognize that it is open and any unencrypted data you send over that network can be seen by anyone else on the same access point.

This is clearly nothing more than a money grab by some people, and hopefully the courts toss it out quickly, though I imagine there will be more lawsuits like this one.

Filed Under: class action, privacy, security, street view, wifi
Companies: google

Student Punished For Facebook Study Group Files $10 Million Lawsuit

from the going-overboard dept

Two years ago, we chronicled what seemed like a bizarre story of Ryerson student Chris Avenir, who was threatened with expulsion for daring to setup an online study group for his chemistry class on Facebook. The university accused him of cheating, when he noted that this was really no different than if a bunch of the students all got together to study. The whole thing seemed pretty ridiculous. Eventually, the school decided not to expel him, but still punished him by giving him a zero on one assignment and putting a "disciplinary note" in his file. This still seemed ridiculous. How dare he get students together to study the material! In fact, many schools now encourage those kinds of online study groups.

That said, it's difficult to support Avenir's latest move, which is to file a class action lawsuit against Ryerson, asking for $10 million because he wasn't allowed to have a lawyer present at his disciplinary hearing (found via Michael Scott):

A statement of claim filed on Mr. Avenir's behalf says that students enrolled at Ryerson have been denied the right to have a lawyer present at disciplinary hearings. According to the document, the university violated its policy requiring that all hearings comply with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which guarantees a right to legal counsel. The policy states that all its Senate hearings must "be conducted in a manner consistent with" the act.

This is just taking it too far. Yes, the disciplinary action was crazy, but a $10 million class action lawsuit? That seems like a response purely out of spite.

Filed Under: cheating, chris avenir, class action, students, study group
Companies: facebook, ryerson university

Netflix, Warner Bros., Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Movie Window

from the pissing-off-customers-left-and-right dept

Warner Bros. has been busy getting both Netflix and Redbox to agree to delay renting new release DVDs for 28 days, in the misguided belief that this will get more people to buy the DVDs. While Netflix has tried to spin this as benefiting customers it appears plenty of customers see otherwise. Specifically, at least one customer has filed a class action lawsuit against both Warner Bros. and Netflix, alleging that this is restraint of trade and has decreased the value of a Netflix subscription (thanks to Eric for sending this over). It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will get very far, but it certainly suggests that at least some Netflix customers are none too pleased with this move, despite Netflix's claims.

Filed Under: class action, delays, movies, rentals, windows
Companies: netflix, warner bros.

And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz

from the proof-of-harm? dept

I definitely agreed with others that Google's failure to realize the potential privacy problems of automating followers based on who you talk to the most -- and then making that info public -- was a privacy mistake, but is it worth a class action lawsuit? To lawyers, of course it is. These days, if you do anything that people don't like, you can pretty much expect a class action lawsuit that really serves only one purpose: to enrich the lawyers bringing the class action lawsuit. So, it comes as no surprise that a class action lawsuit have been filed against Google for the Buzz privacy mishap. But, really, is this necessary? The company quickly admitted it had made a mistake and changed things. At this point, what good does a class action lawsuit do? It's not like the company hid something bad and tried to avoid taking responsibility for it. Class action lawsuits can have real value, but in this case, it's a pure money grab.

Filed Under: class action, google buzz, privacy
Companies: google

Court Dumps Class Action Lawsuit Saying Apple iPod Responsible For Hearing Loss

from the what-did-the-judge-say?--speak-up! dept

A few years back, someone sued Apple, claiming that the iPod caused hearing loss, saying that the devices have an "inherently defective design" and that they need more warnings that you can acquire hearing loss if high volumes are used. The lawsuit eventually turned into a class action, which a district court dismissed. Now an appeals court has agreed, saying that the plaintiffs showed no evidence that an iPod "poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss." Basically, the argument amounted to "you know, Apple could make iPods that are less likely to lead to hearing loss." But that's not legally actionable, and it's good that the courts were quick to point that out.

Filed Under: class action, hearing loss, ipods, sound
Companies: apple