On Second Thought…Delete My Post!

Imagine having the right to demand that websites you have posted on take down the content or information that you later regret having posted.  California is on its way to enacting such a law, albeit for the benefit of minors only.

 

California filed what is referred to as an “eraser” law with its Secretary of State on September 23^rd.  If Governor Jerry Brown does not veto the bill, which he apparently has taken no position on, it will go into effect as of January 1, 2015.  The New York Times quoted James Steyer, the chief executive of Common Sense Media, an advocacy group that supported the bill, as stating, “Kids and teenagers often self-reveal before they self-reflect…It’s a very important milestone.”

The bill, Chapter 21 of Division 8 of California’s Business and Professional Code would require “the operator of an Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application to permit a minor, who is a registered user of the operator’s Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application, to remove, or to request and obtain removal of, content or information posted on the operator’s Internet Web site, service, or application by the minor, unless the content or information was posted by a 3rd party, any other provision of state or federal law requires the operator or 3rd party to maintain the content or information, or the operator anonymizes the content or information.”  Moreover, the bill would require the site to notify the minor that the minor has such a right.

Concerns about the legislation, identified in Somini Segupta’s piece in the New York Times, include the fact that companies will be able to collect more information on minors as they would need to identify their age and presence in California and, further, that the passage of similar laws in other states could create a hodgepodge of varied laws with varied requirements throughout the nation.  This latter concern, however, is seemingly endemic of the U.S.’s approach to privacy protection in general, which tends to be ad hoc on a state level and industry specific on the federal level.

There has been ongoing pressure in Europe for “right to-be-forgotten” legislation, which differs from California’s legislation in that it would provide for a similar “eraser” right for all Europeans regardless of age.

You can find the proposed California legislation here.  

Facebook Posts Lead to Judge Tossing Verdict

Facebook posts may have played a role in a Georgia judge throwing out a plaintiff's verdict.

The suit involved a claim brought by Michael Bowbliss, who suffered nerve damage as a result of a lab technician's failure to properly draw blood for a routine, insurance related blood test. The award, originally for 5.7 million dollars, was first reduced by State Court Judge Patsy Porter to 4 million dollars, and then further reduced after the judge questioned Bowbliss's spouse's award for consortium damages, which exceeded Bowbliss's award for his original injury.  However, the Georgia judge eventually eliminated the entire verdict as a sanction against the couple for perpetrating a fraud upon the court.  Evidence, including the couple's Facebook posts, seemed to indicate that the couple had been in a troubled marriage during the time Dee Anna Bowbliss was seeking loss of consortium damages.  The attorneys for the defense claimed the marriage itself was a sham and that the Bowbliss's intention was to divorce after the completion of the trial. Moreover, the plaintiff's Facebook posts indicated that his injuries may not have been as severe as professed to the court.  One such post included, "can not go to gym til lawsuit over...due to it not looking right for me to be working out...and saying I have a bad arm."  With respect to the defense attorney's "sham marriage" assertion, one of the plaintiff's other posts read ""Judge is f[**]king on my case...dee and I aren't divorced yet because of piece of s[**]t judge and case."

Although the attorneys for defendant, Quick-Med, Inc. and its parent Quest Diagnostics, requested that the suit be dismissed with prejudice, Judge Porter refused.  The plaintiff's attorneys have already refiled the case.

Read more about this case in The Daily Report.