Advertising Law - December 2014

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

In This Issue:

  • Wasserman Invited to Moderate Panel Session at FDLI’s Enforcement, Litigation and Compliance Conference
  • SPECIAL FOCUS: Adding You to My Professional Network Emails May End Up Being Costly for LinkedIn as Publicity Rights Suit Moves Forward
  • FTC, Wyndham Head to Mediation – Could They Reach a Deal?
  • Not as TRUSTe as It Claimed, FTC Says
  • NAD Spits Out Taste Test Claims
  • Google Wins Another Challenge to Search-Results Ordering

Wasserman Invited to Moderate Panel Session at FDLI’s Enforcement, Litigation and Compliance Conference

On December 8-9, 2014, attorrneys and litigators, regulators, compliance experts and consultants in the drug, medical devices, biologics and food and dietary supplements industries will convene at The Food and Drug Law Institute’s (FDLI) Enforcement, Litigation and Compliance Conference in Washington, D.C. The presenters will focus on changes in the law and regulation over the year and predict changes in 2015. Manatt partner Ivan Wasserman has been asked to moderate a panel of presenters who will discuss “Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Advertising and Promotion.”

The conference will be held at the Renaissance Downtown Hotel. For more information, click here.

SPECIAL FOCUS: Adding You to My Professional Network Emails May End Up Being Costly for LinkedIn as Publicity Rights Suit Moves Forward

Author: Jesse Brody

A putative class action alleging that LinkedIn Corp. violated their right of publicity by sending reminder emails to users’ contacts without their permission will move forward, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently ruled.

Plaintiffs in this case are seeking to represent a class of LinkedIn users who used an email address when signing up for a LinkedIn account. Plaintiffs brought a putative class action suit last September against the social media site, alleging it had harvested their email addresses during the sign-up process.

During that process, new users are given the option to allow LinkedIn to search their email contact list for individuals who are not already on LinkedIn. They are given next the option to choose whether or not to invite their contacts to connect with them on LinkedIn. If they do, the site sends an invitation to connect. These messages come from the user’s name via LinkedIn and contain the following text: “I’d like to add you to my professional network . . . .” This text is followed by a signature line that contains the LinkedIn user’s name. Two more messages are sent if the contact does not sign up. Plaintiffs refer to these messages as “endorsement emails,” because they are made to look, according to plaintiffs, as if they have been sent by the user and as if the user endorses LinkedIn.

Plaintiffs alleged the use of their names and likenesses to personally endorse LinkedIn’s services for the site’s commercial benefit violated California’s common law and statutory rights of publicity as well as the state’s unfair competition law, according to the complaint.

Back in June of this year, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh granted in part and denied in part LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss the case. Koh dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claims against LinkedIn under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, and Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511. She also held that the plaintiffs consented to the initial invitation emails, narrowing the case to whether the reminder emails were unlawful.

LinkedIn moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint in September, which the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs alleged in the amended complaint that LinkedIn violated California’s common law and statutory right of publicity, Cal. Civil Code § 3344, and the unlawful prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, based on abridging plaintiffs’ common law right of publicity.

While Koh agreed with the defendant that the statutory publicity rights claim should be dismissed, she allowed the suit to move forward on the plaintiffs’ other claims. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ statutory right of publicity claim because the plaintiffs failed to plead mental harm, which it said was required when requesting the minimum statutory damages figure of $750. The court said the plaintiffs alleged only economic harm as a result of the reminder emails. Although the California law doesn’t explicitly require plaintiffs to plead mental harm, the court said that Miller v. Collectors Universe Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 988 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), held the requirement should be inferred based on a reading of the statute’s legislative history. Quoting Miller, the court said the statutory minimum damages were meant “to compensate non-celebrity plaintiffs” who suffer “mental anguish yet no discernible commercial loss.” The court did, however, grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint regarding their statutory right of publicity claim.

LinkedIn’s other defenses proved unavailing. LinkedIn argued that the plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because its reminder emails were protected by the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. The court rejected both claims. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services against liability from content created by third parties, does not apply to the creation of content by a Web Site, the court explained. The court said plaintiffs plausibly alleged that LinkedIn’s reminder emails were advertisements for the professional social networking site. The court added that it agreed with plaintiffs’ use of Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg’s quote from Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011), that a trusted referral “influences people more than the best broadcast message” and that a “trusted referral is the Holy Grail of advertising.” The “true authorship” of the messages lies with the defendant: the text, layout, and design of the emails were generated by the site and then transmitted to thousands of recipients by the defendant, without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent. Even though the plaintiffs arguably consented to the use of their information for the initial message, that was not enough to protect the defendant. Thus the messages themselves constituted commercial speech and functioned as advertisements for LinkedIn, the court said, receiving less First Amendment protection and possibly none at all, given that plaintiffs “plausibly alleged that LinkedIn’s reminder emails are misleading commercial speech, for which the First Amendment provides no protection.”

Finally, Judge Koh rejected the defendant’s argument that its use of the plaintiffs’ names and likenesses was incidental and therefore did not give rise to liability. “Plaintiffs here have sufficiently alleged that LinkedIn’s reminder emails serve as personalized endorsements for LinkedIn’s services,” she wrote, and provided meaningful value to the site because they made use of plaintiffs’ names and likenesses to help grow the membership of LinkedIn virally.

To read the order in Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., click here.

Why it matters: Although the court sided with LinkedIn and dismissed the plaintiffs’ statutory right of publicity claim, it granted the putative class leave to amend and refile the claim where plaintiffs can now allege they suffered mental anguish. While LinkedIn had initial success in an earlier ruling from the court dismissing claims based on the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act and holding that the plaintiffs consented to the initial invitation email, the case continues with regard to the reminder emails sent by LinkedIn on the common law publicity rights claim and under California’s unfair competition statute.

Although LinkedIn has had some success in whittling down the lawsuit, the court’s recent order seems to indicate that there may be a good claim alleged by plaintiffs based on violation of a user’s right of publicity. It would seem easy for plaintiffs to be able to amend the complaint to allege that they suffered emotional harm as a result of seeing their network reputation suffer, and the court even alludes to the fact that emotional injury that results from reputational harm is sufficient. With that said, the right of publicity continues to be an area where brands and companies can get themselves into significant legal trouble.

Just as we have seen with respect to similar claims made in previous sponsored stories lawsuits involving other social media sites that have resulted in settlements, we will likely see LinkedIn take a similar path and settle this lawsuit. Even though we don’t yet have a definitive ruling, there are still key takeaways from LinkedIn’s right of publicity troubles:

  • Social media users, even if not celebrities, may have an actionable right of publicity associated with marketing or promotions that link them to the advertiser without proper consent.
  • Though their injury may not be as great as that of a celebrity who is in the business of selling endorsements, social media users may be able to establish some economic value to linking them to advertisers. In Perkins, using plaintiffs' names and likenesses was found to provide meaningful value to LinkedIn because it helped grow the membership of LinkedIn virally. In other similar lawsuits, plaintiffs have been able to point to linking user names and likenesses to advertising resulted in higher advertising rates.
  • As a result, not only might such a misappropriation support a right of publicity claim, it may also support an unfair competition claim. These decisions are likely to attract further claims by class action lawyers for other promotional campaigns that associate users or customers with advertising.
  • Social media and Web site providers should be careful to avoid notice and consent issues, including allegations of changed terms and insufficient notice to users.
  • Immunity afforded by the Communications Decency Act is limited. Outside of the Ninth Circuit, some courts still include rights of publicity as intellectual property claims excluded from the immunity.
  • Advertisers relying on third-party platforms to obtain consent are particularly at risk, as they are not in privity of contract even if the platform obtains consent. If you have questions about setting up a formal process in order to obtain consent from users to reuse content in promotional campaigns, we would be happy to share our depth of experience with you.

FTC, Wyndham Head to Mediation – Could They Reach a Deal?

Could the high-profile dispute over the scope of the Federal Trade Commission’s data security authority be settled in mediation?

Just days after the Commission filed its response to Wyndham Hotel’s motion to dismiss the charges against it – with amicus briefs filed in support of both parties – the presiding judge ordered the parties to begin mediation.

The case began innocuously enough, with the FTC alleging that the hotel chain violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by misrepresenting the strength of its data security protection after suffering three cyberattacks between 2008 and 2010.

But unlike the more than 50 other companies facing similar charges from the agency, Wyndham fired back with a direct challenge to the FTC’s authority to make an unfair practices claim in the data security context. The company also contended that the agency violated fair notice principles by not first promulgating regulations before bringing a Section 5 charge.

In an opinion that recognized the “rapidly evolving” digital age, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas declined “to carve out a data security exception” to the FTC’s authority. Wyndham appealed to the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed to hear the case in August.

Continuing the battle, the hotel chain filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Wyndham contended that it did nothing and maintained that the agency seeks to hold them responsible for security breaches even though the agency has not established data security standards. “The Commission has simply anointed itself a roving cybersecurity prosecutor – but, unlike other prosecutors, one that seeks to define the offense and to do so after the fact,” Wyndham wrote in its brief.

Groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Electronic Transactions Association, and the Washington Legal Foundation backed the company in amicus briefs.

The FTC filed its response in which it reiterated the same lapses in security measures that, in its view, constituted an unfair practice. Consumer groups such as the Center for Digital Democracy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Citizen have supported the agency’s position.

According to the agency, “Wyndham left customer data unprotected by firewalls; did not encrypt credit card information; used outdated software that could not receive security updates; used widely known default passwords and easily guessed passwords instead of complex passwords . . . and failed to employ reasonable measures for detecting and preventing intrusions.”

But while the federal appellate panel considers the arguments, the parties will be spending a little more time together. Citing the need to conserve judicial resources, Judge Salas ordered mediation for Wyndham and the FTC. He stayed formal discovery and ordered the parties to evenly split the meditation costs.

To read the court’s order in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., click here.

Why it matters: Could the closely watched, heated battle between the FTC and Wyndham fizzle out in mediation? If the parties reach a deal, the question of the agency’s regulatory authority in the data security realm could go unanswered, a result that would frustrate many businesses hoping for guidance on the issue.

Not as TRUSTe as It Claimed, FTC Says

The Federal Trade Commission reached a deal with privacy certification company TRUSTe to settle charges that the company misled consumers about its recertification program and that it falsely perpetuated its reputation as a nonprofit entity.

Consumers believe that a business with a TRUSTe seal has complied with standards such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act or the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, the agency said, but over a seven-year period TRUSTe failed to conduct more than 1,000 recertifications for all companies holding TRUSTe Certified Privacy Seals. Even though the company’s Web site states that recertifications are conducted on an annual basis, between 2006 and 2013 TRUSTe just didn’t get around to doing it, the agency claimed.

In addition, after the company became a for-profit corporation in 2008, TRUSTe neglected to provide updated references about its status to clients. Companies bearing the TRUSTe seal continued to use the model language previously provided by TRUSTe stating that it was a nonprofit entity, the FTC said, perpetuating a misperception.

Pursuant to a proposed consent order, TRUSTe will be prohibited from future misrepresentations about its certification process, the certification timeline, and its corporate status. As a COPPA safe harbor entity, TRUSTe will be required to provide information about its activities in annual reports to the FTC for the next decade. The company also promised to pay $200,000.

While the Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was unanimous, Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen partially dissented with regard to the nonprofit misrepresentation charges. She argued that to be liable for deception under a “means and instrumentalities” theory requires that the party itself make a representation. TRUSTe’s recertification of an entity without requiring (albeit requesting) that the company update the relevant language that it was now a for-profit entity should not trigger liability, Ohlhausen said.

She expressed her concern that the FTC was “stepping beyond the limits.” “TRUSTe did not pass to clients any false or misleading representations regarding its for-profit status.”

In a joint statement, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Commissioners Julie Brill and Terrell McSweeny characterized the means and instrumentalities charge as “particularly appropriate” given TRUSTe’s “unique position in the privacy self-regulatory ecosystem. Companies that purport to hold their clients accountable to protect consumer privacy should themselves be held to an equally high standard.”

The agreement is open for public comment until Dec. 17.

To read the complaint, proposed consent agreement, and statements from the Chairwoman and Commissioners in In the Matter of True Ultimate Standards Everywhere, Inc., click here.

Why it matters: In a press release, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez characterized the action as a failure of self-regulation. “TRUSTe promised to hold companies accountable for protecting consumer privacy, but it fell short of that pledge,” she said. “Self-regulation plays an important role in helping to protect consumers. But when companies fail to live up to their promises to consumers, the FTC will not hesitate to take action.” The case also provided the Commissioners an opportunity to debate the scope of “means and instrumentalities” liability – an important consideration for advertisers.

NAD Spits Out Taste Test Claims

Taste tests used by MOM Brands Company to support superiority claims for its Malt-O-Meal cereals were flawed, which prompted the National Advertising Division to recommend that the advertiser discontinue the ads.

Competitor Post Foods challenged comparative claims such as “National Taste Test WINNER Fruity Dyno-Bites Preferred Over Post Fruity Pebbles” and “MOM Oat Blenders with Honey & Almonds Preferred Over Post Honey Bunches of Oats with Almonds!”

Post argued that the advertiser’s taste test failed to meet industry standards for taste superiority claim substantiation as laid out in the ASTM Standard Guide for Sensory Claim Substantiation. In particular, the test populations did not accurately reflect the consumers of the product, the challenger said. Although consumers under the age of 35 compose a very high percentage of the cereals’ eaters (72 percent of Cocoa Pebbles consumers and 82 percent of Fruity Pebbles), the test subjects were limited to those aged 30 to 64.

But children are not the purchasers of the cereal products, MOM told the NAD, and the test properly encompassed the group targeted by its advertising: the actual purchasers of the products.

Citing concerns about the selected ages as well as the geographic range tested, the self-regulatory body recommended the claims be discontinued.

“NAD has established clear evidentiary standards for comparative taste claims,” according to the decision. “The best evidence to support taste preference claims is a double-blind taste test of comparative products and involves a geographically dispersed sample that reflects the population covered by the claim. The taste test should include adequate protocols, including: (1) compare products with similar shelf life that were purchased in the test market; (2) prepare both products according to instructions; (3) present and test products in the same way; (4) require test subjects to cleanse their palate prior to tasting each product; and (5) produce statistically significant results.”

MOM utilized only one testing center in the Northeast census region, as opposed to two or more – “a significant deviation from the industry standard” set by Section of the ASTM Guide, the NAD said. “This affects the consumer relevance of the taste tests, as taste preferences can be significantly impacted by geographic variance.”

The claim that its products won a “National Taste Test” “conveys a broad, strong message regarding the taste preferences of the overall population of sweetened breakfast cereal consumers,” the NAD wrote. “Additionally, although the advertiser may have less of a presence in the Northeast, that may not necessarily be true for the challenger’s products or mean that there is not a significant population of a sweetened breakfast cereal consumers in that region.”

Because MOM limited the age range to 30 to 64, the self-regulatory body found the test to be insufficiently reliable and resulted in “problematic limitation on the taste tests’ sample population.”

“NAD and [the National Advertising Review Board] have held that ‘taste tests should sample consumers who customarily use the products being compared,’” the NAD wrote. “[B]y selecting a specific type of breakfast cereal purchaser for its taste test the advertiser excluded more than half of actual product users in the product category.”

MOM indicated that it plans to appeal the decision to the NARB. “We believe these decisions are inconsistent with the principles of the ASTM Guide for Sensory Claim Substantiation, and would do a disservice to the advertising industry if the decision stood as a precedent,” MOM said. The advertiser reiterated its position that the geographic locations were correctly chosen as “ten distinct locations in proportion to where the products are sold” so that the testing locations matched the locations where the claim would be seen.

As for the age groups represented in the samples, “We believe our use of adults was appropriate for buyers of all the products who primarily see the claim at the point of purchase,” the advertiser wrote. “MOM Brands also believes the NAD decision would impose, among other things, a requirement to test on children even for a product normally purchased and consumed by adults.”

To read the NAD’s press release about the decision, click here.

Why it matters: “Taste superiority claims should be supported by taste tests that sample consumers who customarily use the products being compared,” the NAD said. The self-regulatory body emphasized that the users of products should participate in testing, not the purchasers. In this case, that would mean consumers under the age of 30, a requirement MOM felt was inappropriate.

Google Wins Another Challenge to Search-Results Ordering

Google has a First Amendment right to order its search results as it pleases, a California judge has ruled in the latest attempt to challenge the site’s results rankings.

Upset that his company appeared too far down in Google’s search results, CoastNews owner Lewis Martin filed suit against the search engine in California state court. Martin claimed that his site’s SEO was significantly impacted by appearing much lower on Google’s list when compared to results for Bing and Yahoo. The complaint sought $5 million in damages.

Google responded with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) motion, arguing that the suit must be dismissed because CoastNews was attempting to infringe the company’s free-speech rights in violation of state law. Search results are based on Google’s opinion about which Web sites will be most helpful to a user and are therefore fully protected by the First Amendment, the search engine told the court.

In a brief order, Superior Court Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith agreed and tossed CoastNews’ complaint.

“Defendant has met its burden of showing that the claims asserted against it arise from constitutionally protected activity, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of the complaint,” the court wrote. As the plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion “and has provided no evidence supporting a probability of success,” Judge Goldsmith struck the complaint without leave to amend.

To read the order in Martin v. Google, Inc., click here.



DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at:

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.