Group items tagged

The US Department of Justice has asked for yet another extension to the judicial oversight of Microsoft's antitrust compliance in order to give the company more time to update its technical documentation. The original judgment had already been extended once to late 2009, but now the DOJ wants it extended again for another 18 months. The sanctions on Microsoft, which were agreed to in 2002 and originally set to expire in November 2007, are aimed at preventing the company from retaliating against hardware vendors that ship computers with alternatives to Microsoft's software products. An additional set of sanctions mandating interoperability API licensing had already been extended for another two years. When it came time for the decree to be lifted, however, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided that Microsoft failed to provide protocol specification documents to competitors as required by the agreement. Because of this, she extended the oversight until November of 2009. In a document filed with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Thursday, the DOJ requested another extension to her oversight of Microsoft's antitrust settlement, apparently because it feels Microsoft still has a ways to go before meeting the requirements. At the same time, a joint status report from Microsoft and the plaintiffs states that all parties seem to think that things are almost ready. "It is clear to Plaintiffs that Microsoft has made substantial progress in improving the technical documentation over the last two years," reads the report. "While the entire project has taken longer than any of the parties anticipated, the project is nearly complete." The request marks a reversal of the DOJ's previous position that it took in 2007 when it decided not to ask for an extension of the settlement while the attorneys general of ten states (the so-called California and New York Groups) pushed for extensions. At that time, the DOJ stated that it didn't believe that the standard for such an extension had b

Until now, lawsuits seeking to recover significant damages based on the loss of, or unauthorized access to, sensitive personal information have not been especially successful for plaintiffs. Most companies suffering data breaches have escaped by offering affected consumers inexpensive credit monitoring services. But two recent cases show plaintiffs a way to expose many previously safe companies to substantial claims for damages. Any company that thinks there are no risks in employing less than best practices for data privacy and security needs a wake up call. The headlines are all too familiar. Some well known consumer services company (or less known wholesale data processor) announces that millions of individual records containing names, Social Security numbers, account numbers and other sensitive information were left in a dumpster, saved to a stolen, unencrypted laptop, or stored on a misplaced USB drive or backup tape. The press is terrible, the company's stock takes a temporary plunge, and sometimes the Federal Trade Commission enters into a consent decree where the company promises to never do it again. But when affected individuals or groups of consumers tried to sue for damages, they seldom recover significant amounts. These cases have not often succeeded because the plaintiffs have been unable to prove actual pecuniary losses resulting from the security breach. Sure, if identify theft occurs the affected individuals can suffer significant emotional trauma, loss of time, etc. But Courts have been unwilling to award damages for anxiety, fear, and other emotional harm that can result from a data breach, for the risk of future identify theft, or for actual identity theft when the plaintiff could not prove that the theft occurred as a direct result of a data breach at a particular source. Most companies facing claims based on data breaches have been able to settle cheaply by offering to provide credit monitoring services, which most consumers do not use, resu

Better to settle with the FTC than get your company's reputation as consumer-friendly (deserved or not) dragged through the court of public opinion.

Sears Holdings has agreed to settle allegations it collected personal data from customers without adequate disclosures, the Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday. The FTC had accused Sears Holdings, created in 2005 with the merger of Sears and Kmart, of paying online customers $10 to allow the company to track their online browsing. But the FTC said Sears also collected information on non-Sears sites, such as online bank statements, drug prescription records and emails. "The software would also track some computer activities that were not related to the Internet," the FTC said in a statement. Sears did disclose all it would monitor in a lengthy user license agreement, but the FTC argued it was not enough. "The complaint charges that Sears' failure to adequately disclose the scope of the tracking software's data collection was deceptive and violates the FTC Act," the FTC said in a statement. Sears did not immediately reply to two telephone calls and one email seeking a comment. Under the settlement, Sears is required to destroy the data collected and make future disclosures more prominent.