The Secure Times

An online forum of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law's Privacy and Information Security Committee


Leave a comment

Yesterday at FTC, President Obama Announced Plans for new data privacy and security laws: Comprehensive Data Privacy Law, Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, and Student Digital Privacy Act

Yesterday afternoon, President Barak Obama gave a quip-filled speech at the Federal Trade Commission where he praised the FTC’s efforts in protecting American consumers over the past 100 years and unveiled his plans to implement legislation to protect American consumers from identity theft and to protect school children’s personal information from being used by marketers.   These plans build upon past legislative efforts and the Administration’s focus on cybersecurity, Big Data, and Consumer Protection.  Specifically, On February 23, 2012, the White House released “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy” (the “Privacy Blueprint”) and in January 2014, President Obama asked his Counselor, John Podesta, to lead a working group to examine Big Data’s impact on government, citizens, businesses, and consumers.  The working group produced Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values on May 1, 2014.

In his speech, the President highlighted the need for increased privacy and security protections as more people go online to conduct their personal business—shop, manage bank accounts, pay bills, handle medical records, manage their “smart” homes, etc.—stating that “we shouldn’t have to forfeit our basic privacy when we go online to do our business”.  The President referenced his “Buy Secure” initiative that would combat credit card fraud through a “chip-and-pin” system for credit cards and credit-card readers issued by the United States government.  In that system, a microchip would be imbedded in a credit card and would replace a magnetic strip since microchips are harder than magnetic strips for thieves to clone.   A pin number would also need to be entered by the consumer into the credit card reader just as with an ATM or debit card.  The President praised those credit card issuers, banks, and lenders that allowed consumers to view their credit scores for free.   He also lauded the FTC’s efforts in the efforts to help identity theft victims by working with credit bureaus and by providing guidance to consumers on its website, identitytheft.gov.

The first piece of legislation the President discussed briefly was a comprehensive breach notification law that would require companies to notify consumers of a breach within 30 days and that would allow identity thieves to be prosecuted even when the criminal activity was done overseas. Currently, there is no federal breach notification law and many states have laws requiring companies to notify affected consumers and/or regulators depending on the type of information compromised and the jurisdiction in which the organization operates.  The state laws also require that breach notification letters to consumers should include certain information, such as information on the risks posed to the individual as a result of the breach along with steps to mitigate the harm.   This “patchwork of laws,” President Obama noted, is confusing to customers and costly for companies to comply with.  The plan to introduce a comprehensive breach notification law adopts the policy recommendation from the Big Data Report that Congress pass legislation that provides for a single national data breach standard along the lines of the Administration’s May 2011 Cybersecurity legislative proposal.  Such legislation should impose reasonable time periods for notification, minimize interference with law enforcement investigations, and potentially prioritize notification about large, damaging incidents over less significant incidents.

The President next discussed the second piece of legislation he would propose, the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.  This initiative is not new.  Electronic Privacy Bills of Rights of 1998 and 1999 have been introduced.  In 2011, Senators John Kerry, John McCain, and Amy Klobucher introduced S.799 – Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011.   The Administration’s  Privacy Blueprint of February 23, 2012 set forth the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights and, along with the Big Data Report, directed The Department of Commerce’s The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to seek comments from stakeholders in order to develop legally-enforceable codes of conduct that would apply the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights to specific business contexts.

The Big Data Report of May 1, 2014 recommended that The Department of Commerce seek stakeholder and public comment on big data developments and how they impact the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights draft and consider legislative text for the President to submit to Congress.  On May 21, 2014, Senator Robert Menendez introduced S.2378 – Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2014.  The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights set forth seven basic principles:

1) Individual control – Consumers have the right to exercise control over what information data companies collect about them and how it is used.

2) Transparency – Consumers have the right to easily understandable and accessible privacy and security practices.

3) Respect for context – Consumers expect that data companies will collect, use, and disclose the information they provided in ways consistent with the context it was provided.

4) Security – consumers have the right to secure and responsible handling of personal data.

5) Access and accuracy – Consumers have the right to access and correct their personal data in usable formats in a manner that is appropriate to the data’s sensitivity and the risk of adverse consequences if the data is not accurate.

6) Focused Collection – Consumers have the right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.

7) Accountability – Consumers have the right to have companies that collect and use their data to have the appropriate methods in place to assure that they comply with the consumer bill of rights.

The President next discussed the third piece of legislation he would propose, the Student Digital Privacy Act.  The President noted how new educational technologies including tailored websites, apps, tablets, digital tutors and textbooks transform how children learn and help parents and teachers track students’ progress.  With these technologies, however, companies can mine student data for non-educational, commercial purposes such as targeted marketing.  The Student Privacy Act adopts the Big Data Report’s policy recommendation of ensuring that students’ data, collected and gathered in an educational context, is used for educational purposes and that students are protected against having their data shared or used inappropriately.  The President noted that the Student Digital Privacy Act would not “reinvent the wheel” but mirror on a federal level state legislation, specifically the California law to take effect next year that bars education technology companies from selling student data or using that data to target students with ads.   The current federal law that protects student’s privacy is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, which does not protect against companies’ data mining that reveals student’s habits and profiles for targeted advertising but rather protects against official educational records from being released by schools. The President highlighted current self-regulation, the Student Privacy Pledge, signed by 75 education technology companies committing voluntary not to sell student information or use education technologies to send students targeted ads.  It has been discussed whether self-regulation would work and whether the proposed Act would go far enough.  The President remarked that parents want to make sure that children are being smart and safe online, it is their responsibility as parents to do so but that structure is needed for parents to ensure that information is not being gathered about students without their parents or the kids knowing about it.  This hinted at a notification requirement and opt-out for student data mining that is missing from state legislation but is a requirement of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.  Specifically, COPPA requires companies and commercial website operators that direct online services to children under 13, collect personal information from children under 13, or that know they are collecting personal information from children under to children under 13 to provide parents with notice about the site’s information-collection practices, obtain verifiable consent from parents before collecting personal information, give parents a choice as to whether the personal information is going to be disclosed to third parties, and give parents access and the opportunity to delete the children’s personal information, among other things.

President Obama noted that his speech marked the first time in 80 years—since FDR—that a President has come to the FTC.   His speech at the FTC on Monday was the first of a three-part tour leading up to his State of the Union address.  Next, the President also planned to speak at the Department of Homeland Security on how the government can collaborate with the private sector to ward off cyber security attacks.  His final speak will take place in Iowa, where he will discuss how to bring faster, cheaper broadband access to more Americans.


Leave a comment

Direct Marketing Association Launches “Data Protection Alliance”

Image

On October 29, 2013, the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) announced the launch of a new initiative, the Data Protection Alliance, which it describes “as  a legislative coalition that will focus specifically on ensuring that effective regulation and legislation protects the value of the Data-Driven Marketing Economy far into the future.” In its announcement release, the DMA reports the results of a study it commissioned on the economic impact of what calls “the responsible use of consumer data” on “data-driven innovation.” According to the DMA, its study indicated that regulation which “impeded responsible exchange of data across the Data-Driven Marketing Economy” would cause substantial negative damage to the U.S.’ economic growth and employment. Instead of such regulation, the DMA asks Congress to focus on its “Five Fundamentals for the Future”:

  1. Pass a national data security and breach notification law;

  2. Preempt state laws that endanger the value of data;

  3. Prohibit privacy class action suits and fund Federal Trade Commission enforcement;

  4. Reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA); and

  5. Preserve robust self-regulation for the Data-Driven Marketing Economy.

The DMA is explicitly concerned with its members’ interests, as any trade group would be, and this report and new Data Protection Alliance are far from the only views being expressed as to the need for legislation and regulation to alter the current balance between individual control and commercial use of personal information. Given the size and influence of the DMA and its members, though, this announcement provides useful information on the framing of the ongoing debate in the United States and elsewhere over privacy regulation.


Leave a comment

Recent FTC Actions and Statements Show Continuing Focus on Privacy

The Federal Trade Commission has long taken a lead role in issues of privacy and data protection, under its general consumer protection jurisdiction under Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. §45) as well as specific legislation such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA“) (which itself arose out of FTC reports). The FTC continues to bring legal actions against companies it believes have improperly collected, used or shared consumer personal information, including the recent settlement of a complaint filed against Aaron’s, Inc., a national rent-to-own retail chain based in Atlanta, GA. In its October 22, 2013 press release announcing the settlement, the FTC described Aaron’s alleged violations of Section 5:

Aaron’s, Inc., a national, Atlanta-based rent-to-own retailer, has agreed to settle FTC charges that it knowingly played a direct and vital role in its franchisees’ installation and use of software on rental computers that secretly monitored consumers including by taking webcam pictures of them in their homes.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Aaron’s franchisees used the software, which surreptitiously tracked consumers’ locations, captured images through the computers’ webcams – including those of adults engaged in intimate activities – and activated keyloggers that captured users’ login credentials for email accounts and financial and social media sites….

The complaint alleges that Aaron’s knew about the privacy-invasive features of the software, but nonetheless allowed its franchisees to access and use the software, known as PC Rental Agent. In addition, Aaron’s stored data collected by the software for its franchisees and also transmitted messages from the software to its franchisees. In addition, Aaron’s provided franchisees with instructions on how to install and use the software.

The software was the subject of related FTC actions earlier this year against the software manufacturer and several rent-to-own stores, including Aaron’s franchisees, that used it. It included a feature called Detective Mode, which, in addition to monitoring keystrokes, capturing screenshots, and activating the computer’s webcam, also presented deceptive “software registration” screens designed to get computer users to provide personal information.

The FTC’s Consent Order Agreement with Aaron’s includes a prohibition on the company using keystroke- or screenshot-monitoring software or activating the consumer’s microphone or Web cam and a requirement to obtain express consent before installing location-tracking technology and provide notice when it’s activated. Aaron’s may not use any data it received through improper activities in collections actions, must destroy illegally obtained information, and must encrypt any transmitted location or tracking data it properly collects.

The FTC is also continuing its efforts to educate and promote best practices about privacy for both consumers and businesses. On October 28, 2013, FTC Commissioner Julie Brill published an opinion piece in Advertising Age magazine entitled Data Industry Must Step Up to Protect Consumer Privacy. In the piece, Commissioner Brill criticizes data collection and marketing firms for failing to uphold basic privacy principles, and calls on them to join an initiative called “Reclaim Your Name” which Commissioner Brill announced earlier this year.

Brill writes in AdAge:

The concept is simple. Through creation of consumer-friendly online services, Reclaim Your Name would empower the consumer to find out how brokers are collecting and using data; give her access to information that data brokers have amassed about her; allow her to opt-out if a data broker is selling her information for marketing purposes; and provide her the opportunity to correct errors in information used for substantive decisions.

Improving the handling of sensitive data is another part of Reclaim Your Name. Data brokers that participate in Reclaim Your Name would agree to tailor their data handling and notice and choice tools to the sensitivity of the information at issue. As the data they handle or create becomes more sensitive — relating to health conditions, sexual orientation and financial condition, for example — the data brokers would provide greater transparency and more robust notice and choice to consumers.

For more information on the FTC’s privacy guidance and enforcement, see the privacy and security section of the FTC Web site.


Leave a comment

Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation: A road map to “commercial electronic messages”

Let’s take stock of the information currently available on Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL).  First, there is the Act itself.  Next, there are:

If you still have questions about the circumstances in which you can send a commercial electronic message (CEM) under CASL, you’re not alone. 

The following one-page overview is intended as a guide to the various scenarios contemplated under CASL.  As an “at a glance” reference, it is not intended as legal advice, and is not a substitute for consulting CASL and the various regulations and bulletins noted above.  It should, however, serve as a high level road-map through the maze.

CASL-Overview-Image


Leave a comment

Canada’s Anti-Spam Law is coming – and will affect US businesses

Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (CASL) is now expected to enter into force in 2013.  Don’t expect things to sit idle until then, however. 

3 Next Steps for CASL in 2012

Following are three next steps for 2012, ranked in order of importance to industry stakeholders:

1.  Industry Canada to issue new set of regulations for comment

While businesses had hoped that regulations would clarify key terms and obligations under the Act, and lessen the Act’s impact on certain types of communications, many stakeholders were disappointed.  Many businesses considered that neither the draft Industry Canada regulations, nor the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulations as finalized, went far enough to clarify obligations.  Moreover, neither set of regulations provided the exemptions many businesses have called for, to exclude certain categories or types of messages from the application of CASL consent requirements. 

A glimmer of hope is in sight:  Industry Canada is expected to publish a new set of regulations for comment in the coming weeks.  These regulations are expected to contain some exemptions from the application of CASL requirements.  In the comment period, businesses will have the opportunity to comment on the regulations, and seek further changes to make CASL more workable. 

2.  CRTC to issue a series of information bulletins for industry

Anyone who has tried to read through CASL’s provisions and the accompanying CRTC regulations knows that they tend to raise at least as many questions as they answer. 

The CRTC is expected to issue information bulletins in the coming weeks and months to help clarify what is meant, and required, by some key elements of the regulations.  These bulletins may include matters relating to what it means to get consent “in writing” online, and how far businesses must go to make information accessible in “commercial electronic messages”. 

3.  Spam Reporting Centre

The government is currently reviewing bids by third-party service providers to operate the The Spam Reporting Centre.  The Centre will act as a liaison between the public and the government agencies (CRTC, Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Competition Bureau) on spam complaints and monitoring.  The government states that:

“When operational, the Spam Reporting Centre will accept various types of electronic messages from individuals and organizations in Canada. Reporting spam and related electronic threats will not stop such threats completely; however, the data sent to the Spam Reporting Centre will help it identify trends, and try to find out who is sending the spam and other threats and from where. This will aid in the future prosecution and civil proceedings against those responsible for electronic threats in Canada and internationally.”

The final line of the above quote – “future prosecution and civil proceedings”, and “threats in Canada and internationally” – is a stark reminder of two important points. 

First, the government means business.  Its objective is to “drive spammers out of Canada” (then Minister of Industry Tony Clement, 2010).  Second, CASL is designed to reach beyond Canada.  It is designed to capture commercial electronic messages that may be sent from other countries, and also to provide the framework for international monitoring and enforcement. 

3 Things to do while you “wait” for CASL in 2013:

  1. Participate in the comment process on the coming draft Industry Canada regulations
  2. Remind yourself of the differences between the U.S. CAN-SPAM requirements, and CASL
  3. It’s strongly recommended that businesses use the lead time before CASL’s entry into force to get their operations in order.  Prepare your organization’s  CASL audit, checklist, and Compliance Policy.  The CAN-SPAM vs. CASL presentation can help explain the basics. 


Leave a comment

New Developments on Canadian Anti-Spam Law

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has made and registered its Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations for the Anti-Spam Act (CASL), which is expected to come into force in 2012.  The newly released regulations set out the information to be included in, and the form of, commercial electronic messages (CEMs), and information to be included in a request for consent.  The regulations also address how to get consent for the installation of computer programs.

The CRTC has responded to a select few of the broad-ranging concerns raised by businesses on the draft regulations during last year’s consultation phase.  Businesses will find there is a bit more flexibility in the “must-have” information they set out in CEMs, and when they seek consent to send them.  This implicitly recognizes that:

  • businesses operating online are not all created equal:  they do not all have the same contact capabilities, in terms of either human or online resources; and
  • CEMs are are not all created equal:  an email may be easy (relatively speaking) to load up with prescribed information, but online communications come in many forms, and some are not as adaptable to detailed information and contact requirements.

The following points compare the final regulations to the draft regulations (the latter in parentheses).  When sending a CEM or seeking consent, businesses may do the following.

  • simply include the name by which they carry on business (rather than both that and their legal name);
  • include their mailing address, and either a staffed or voicemail phone number, email address or web address (rather than the physical and mailing address, plus all of the above, plus any other electronic address);
  • include the information in the above point on a website that “is readily accessible” (rather than via a single click);
  • use an unsubscribe mechanism that can be “readily performed” (rather than “performed in no more than two clicks or other method of equivalent efficiency”);
  • simply indicate that the person whose consent is sought can withdraw their consent (no need to indicate the means to do so).

Despite the above points of flexibility, there is no denying that the Act and regulations will impose much higher requirements for CEMs than many businesses are prepared for.  This notably includes U.S. businesses operating in Canada who are familiar with, and compliant with, CAN-SPAM.  As we explained in a previous post, CAN-SPAM and CASL are different in several very important ways.  CASL has a broader application, clear reach outside Canada, higher standard for consent, and higher penalties.

In short, any business sending CEMs to Canadians needs to become informed about the CASL requirements and take steps to become compliant.

Next Steps

Further regulations are expected from Industry Canada before CASL comes into force.

Businesses and industry associations have called on the government to introduce even more flexibility to reduce the impact of CASL on their operations, while still meeting the government’s anti-spam priorities.  One of the frequent “asks” has been for some lead time prior to entry into force CASL to allow businesses to prepare their databases and operations.  Others have requested that the government use its regulation-making authority to exclude certain types of CEMs, and CEMs sent under certain circumstances, from the requirements of the Act.

It remains to be seen whether the government will introduce new exceptions, or more flexibility, under regulations to come either before or after CASL comes into effect – expected later this year.


Leave a comment

Comparing CAN-SPAM to Canada’s new Anti-Spam Law

Those who operate or have customers in the U.S. market, are already familiar with the requirements of the 2003 CAN-SPAM Act. If your operations or customers extend into Canada, however, there are new Canadian Anti-Spam rules you need to know. Why? Because these new rules will impact how you engage in online communications in Canada, starting in early 2012.

The SlideShare presentation linked below provides an overview of the key differences between Canada’s new Anti-Spam Law, CASL, and CAN-SPAM. Here are a few:

• Broader application: CASL also applies not only to e-mail, but also to IM, text and more. It also covers more activities, including the installation of computer programs.

• Clear reach outside Canada: CASL expressly applies to messages “accessed from a computer system in Canada”. This means that a message can be sent from outside Canada.

• Higher standard for consent: “Opt-in” consent for CASL versus “Opt-out” for CAN-SPAM.

• Higher penalties: $10 million maximum penalty for an organization that contravenes CASL.

The implications of this:

More online activities will be caught by CASL.

• More activities affecting Canadians will be caught by CASL, even if initiated outside Canada.

More steps will be needed under CASL to be permitted to communicate online.

Overall, there is greater exposure to liability under CASL.

Learn more about CASL, including what steps to take now to avoid liability:

www.slideshare.net/fmclaw/casl-vs-canspam-canadas-antispam-law


Leave a comment

California Amends Song-Beverly Act

California recently amended its Song-Beverly Act (“Act”) to include a specific exception from its prohibition on collecting personal information during a credit card transaction. This exception allows collection of personal information (such as a zip code) by businesses in certain pay at the pump scenarios.   This law was filed with the Secretary of State on October 9, 2011, and went into effect immediately. This amendment was enacted as a result of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Pineda v. Williams Sonoma in February of this year. Our coverage of this decision can be found here.

Litigation continues in California in the aftermath of the Pineda decision. In August, the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, held that the prohibition on collecting and recording personal information under the Act did not apply to online transactions in Gonor v. Craigslist, concurring with an earlier federal court decision from 2009 (See Saulic v. Symantec Corp.)

Litigation has also been filed in other states that have laws similar to the Act. In Massachusetts, suit was filed against Michael’s stores in May. The plaintiff alleged that she made a purchase at a Michael’s store with her credit card, and provider her zip code during the sales transaction. She asserted that Michael’s then combined her zip code with other information to obtain her home address and sent her marketing materials. Plaintiff argues that this practice violates Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 s. 105.

Similarly in New Jersey, suits have been filed in state and federal court regarding the collection of zip code at the point of sale. Plaintiffs argue that this practice violates NJSA 56:11-17. In September, a state court judge allowed a suit to move forward against Harmon Stores.  However, a federal judge came to the opposite conclusion about a week later and dismissed a class action based on this law.   For businesses that collect zip codes or personal information during credit card transactions, this issue will continue to be one to watch.


Leave a comment

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Data Mining Case

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sorrel v. IMS.  At issue was a Vermont law that banned the selling and buying of prescription information without a doctor’s consent. The law also requires that doctors fill out a form as part of their license renewal application that indicates whether they agree to have their prescription information sold for marketing purposes.  The Second Circuit previously held this law was an impermissible restriction upon commercial speech, and therefore unconstitutional.

At oral arguments, it was clear that the Justices viewed this case as one concerning commercial speech.  In response to Vermont’s arguments, Justice Kennedy stated Vermont was “regulating speech,” and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts all suggested that Vermont was attempting to limit drug companies’ speech only because the speech was effective in selling their products.  Although privacy observers have suggested that the ruling will have a large impact on both data mining companies and consumers, only at the end of arguments did at least some of the Justices appear open to allowing states some ability to regulate data-mining that threatened privacy. 

The Court is expected to issue a decision before recessing for the summer.  The transcript of today’s arguments is available here


Leave a comment

Washington State Judge Rules that Robocalls Are “Conversations”

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227, regulates these pesky “robocalls” that you may have deleted more than once in your voice mail, unconvinced by the suave prerecorded messages informing you about an upcoming sale or a new line of products.

Under the TCPA, it is unlawful for any person… to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Federal Communication Commission under paragraph (2)(B).

THE ESTABLISHED BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP EXEMPTION

One of these exemptions is the “established business relationship” exemption (EBR). An EBR is defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 as a ”voluntary two-way communication between a person or entity and a residential subscriber with or without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of the subscriber’s purchase or transaction with the entity within the eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the telephone call or on the basis of the subscriber’s inquiry or application regarding products or services offered by the entity within the three months immediately preceding the date of the call, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party.” 

In April 2009, the retailer Talbots left a prerecorded message on the answering machine of one of its Washington State customers, informing her about some upcoming sales. Her husband, Mr. Cubbage, was annoyed by the message, and sued the retailer, asserting that Talbots had violated the TCPA and the Washington Automatic Dialing and Answering Devices Act, RCW 80. 36.400 (WADAD). Defendant moved for summary judgment, and the United States District Court of Washington granted it in July 2010. The case is Cubbage v. The Talbots, Inc., 2010 WL 2710628 (W.D. Wa. 2010).  

Talbots had argued that the call made to Mr.Cubbage’s wife was permissible because it had an established business relationship with her. Indeed, she had made a purchase at one of the Talbots stores eighteen months before the April 2009 call. Mr. Cubbage argued that since he is the one who listened to the message, the EBR exception did not apply. The Court however disagreed, holding that if a member of a household creates an EBR, that consent extends to calls made to that person’s telephone number.

Mr. Cubbage also argued that the FCC lacked the authority to enact the EBR exemption, but the Court considered that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the validity of the EBR as a rule.

THE WASHINGTON AUTOMATIC DIALING AND ANSWERING DEVICES ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO “CONVERSATIONS”

Mr. Cubbage also asserted a state claim pursuant to WADAD. The statute defines “commercial solicitation” as “the unsolicited initiation of a telephone conversation for the purpose of encouraging a person to purchase property, goods, or services.” Under the statute, “no person may use an automatic dialing and announcing device for purposes of commercial solicitation. This [statute] applies to all commercial solicitation intended to be received by telephone customers within the state.”

Talbots argued that it had not violated the WADAD as the call was not intended to be a “telephone conversation.” Therefore, a distinction may be made between prerecorded calls that initiate a conversation and calls that simply convey information without conversation. The Court agreed, after quoting several definitions of “conversations” as a spoken exchange between two or more people.

Plaintiff asserted that such an interpretation eviscerates the statute, in essence striping it from its power to protect Washington State residents from unwanted calls. He is not alone : Assistant Attorney General Shannon Smith is quoted in an article of The Seattle Times as saying that this “very narrow interpretation of the statute… eviscerates the whole intent of the Legislature.” Her office may file a brief as amicus curia in support to Mr. Cubbage’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.