RIM Faces Class Action Lawsuit Thanks To BlackBerry Outage | TechCrunch

Sorry RIM, but it looks like the promise of free apps and tech support weren’t enough to assuage the masses. According to the Financial Post, RIM is preparing to deal with a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of users affected by the recent worldwide service outage.

Filed in Quebec Superior Court by the Consumer Law Group, the complaint seeks compensation for all of RIM’s customers that “were unable to access their email, BlackBerry Messenger service (BBM), and/or Internet for the period of October 11 to 14, 2011.” RIM hasn’t received the complaint yet, but company representatives have said that the company will “formally respond” to the matter soon.

The lawsuit’s lead complainant was an avid user who used his BlackBerry to communicate with his friends across the western hemisphere. According to the formula laid out in the complaint, he will only be able to collect $1.25 in damages from RIM — not much, but the payouts could quickly add up if the lawsuit picks up steam. The amount of damages owed is calculated on a person by person basis, and accounts for how long a customer was left without service, so some users will net more than others.

via RIM Faces Class Action Lawsuit Thanks To BlackBerry Outage | TechCrunch.

Antitrust Suit Puts Apple at Heart of Pay-limiting Scheme | PCWorld Business Center

A California class action lawsuit puts Apple at the center of a conspiracy involving Google, Adobe, Intel and others to keep employee wages down.

The suit echoes an investigation launched by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2009 that charged the companies with agreeing not to cold call each other’s employees in order to extend job offers. The companies settled with the DOJ, agreeing not to ban cold calling and not to enter into any kind of agreement that prevents competition for employees.

But that settlement didn’t help employees who were potentially paid less because of the deals, the lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California in the County of Alameda on Wednesday, argued.

“Without this class action, Plaintiff and members of the class will not receive compensation for their injuries and Defendants will continue to retain the benefits of their unlawful collusion,” according to the suit.

The suit charges the companies with violating antitrust and unfair competition laws for forming agreements aimed at keeping employee compensation artificially low and eliminating competition among the defendants for skilled labor. The suit was brought by Siddharth Hariharan, a former software engineer at Lucasfilm.

The companies agreed to provide notification to the employer when making an offer to an employee and, when offering a position to another company’s employee, neither company would counteroffer above the initial offer, according to the suit.

via Antitrust Suit Puts Apple at Heart of Pay-limiting Scheme | PCWorld Business Center.

DailyTech – PC Rental Company Spied on Users In Their Homes With Webcams

Class action lawsuit against Aaron’s Inc. is pending

Crystal and Brian Byrd were a hard working couple, but like many people in today’s economy, money was tight.  So when they wanted a new computer they turned to popular rent-to-own chain Aaron’s Inc. (AAN) to affordably purchase a new system.  Picking a Dell Inspiron, they were happy and productive — but they would soon make a disturbing discovery.

I. Big Brother — Your Local Store Manager — is Watching You

After entering a rent-to-own contract on the laptop in early 2010, the couple completed their last payment in October 2010, a month ahead of schedule.  But Mr. Byrd fortuitously made a mistake in his payment submission resulting in Aaron’s never logging it as received.

In December, the store manager showed up at the couple’s house with an order to repossess the computer.  And he carried with him a far more disturbing item — a picture taken from the computer’s web cam inside the couple’s home, which Aaron’s had been using as a remote spy cam.  He claimed the picture was “evidence”.

The Byrds were appalled and called the police.  A police investigation revealed that Aaron’s employees “routinely installed the PC Rental Agent” on rent-to-own laptops.  The PC Rental Agent, a product of DesignerWare, was capable of regularly taking pictures of users, taking screenshots, and logging their key presses — all without the user ever realizing it.

via DailyTech – PC Rental Company Spied on Users In Their Homes With Webcams.

Court Rejects “Shifting Duty” Theory of Preservation, Denies Sanctions Absent Showing that Crucial Evidence was Destroyed in Bad Faith : Electronic Discovery Law

Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc., No. 09-6116-CIV, 2011 WL 1456029 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2011)

Plaintiffs sought sanctions for defendants’ alleged spoliation of evidence, including email correspondence, communications with other body armor manufacturers, and internal communications, among other things.  Finding that plaintiffs failed to show that crucial evidence was destroyed in bad faith, as is required for an adverse inference in the 11th Circuit, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.

Defendants manufactured Zylon, a product used by plaintiffs and other manufacturers in the production of body armor.  In June 2003, a 100% Zylon vest manufactured by Second Chance Body Armor (a non-party to the present litigation) failed when a police officer was shot.  Following the failure of the vest, defendants hired a PR firm to assist with messaging, etc. surrounding possible litigation, although none had yet been initiated.  In November 2003, defendants were “sued across the county in numerous cases involving Zylon-containing vests” (although, apparently, none of these suits involved the plaintiffs in the present action) and the government initiated its own investigation of Zylon-containing body armor.  Also in November 2003 defendants’ counsel requested a list of documents in connection with litigation and an oral litigation hold was issued, although the scope of the hold was not definitively ascertained.  In January 2004 defendants were served with a request for production from the Massachusetts AG which sought copies of all correspondence with certain body armor manufacturers, including plaintiffs.  A similar request was issued from a Michigan state court in July 2004.  In April 2004, defendants and Armor Holdings, a body armor manufacturer, were jointly sued in a class action lawsuit.  In August 2004, defendants were served with a government subpoena seeking evidence related to defendants’ communications with vest manufacturers other than Second Chance (which would have included plaintiffs).  Despite all of this, defendants maintained that litigation with plaintiffs was not anticipated until at least 2006 (and thus no duty to preserve existed until that time), in large part because until that time, plaintiffs continued to “tout the merits of Zylon.”

via Court Rejects “Shifting Duty” Theory of Preservation, Denies Sanctions Absent Showing that Crucial Evidence was Destroyed in Bad Faith : Electronic Discovery Law.

Where “Entire Computer and Component Manufacturer’s Industry” was on Notice of Potential for Litigation, Defendant’s Failure to Preserve Warrants Sanctions : Electronic Discovery Law

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Windbond Elecs. Corp., 2010 WL 3767318 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2010)

In this ongoing multi-defendant patent litigation, the court has previously addressed allegations of spoliation.  In March 2009, the court found sanctions were warranted for defendant ASUS Computer International’s violation of its duty to preserve which arose in the “1999-2000 environment” of litigation surrounding the technology to resolve a defect in a particular floppy disk controller (“FDC”).  In this case, the court reaffirmed its earlier holding regarding the trigger for defendants’ duty to preserve, namely that “[i]n late 1999 the entire computer and component manufacturer’s industry was put on notice of a potential for litigation regarding defective floppy disk components (“FDCs”) by the well publicized settlement in a large class action lawsuit against Toshiba.”  Accordingly, for defendant MSI’s failure to uphold its duty to preserve, the court found sanctions were warranted.

Plaintiff sought sanctions for defendant MSI’s spoliation of documents.  Specifically, MSI was unable to produce certain information, including “a utility used at least once to test for FDC problems”, and admitted that when it switched its email server in 2003, “it simply deleted the emails stored on the previous server.”  The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion and, upon plaintiff’s objection, the matter went before the District Court Judge.

via Where “Entire Computer and Component Manufacturer’s Industry” was on Notice of Potential for Litigation, Defendant’s Failure to Preserve Warrants Sanctions : Electronic Discovery Law.

EFF Urges EU Data Protection Authorities to Call for the Repeal of the EU Data Retention Directive | Electronic Frontier Foundation

This week, EFF is taking part in the 32nd Annual Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners, where we urged the Privacy Authorities to call for the repeal of the European Union’s 2006 Data Retention Directive, which requires Internet service providers operating in Europe to retain telecom and Internet traffic data about all of their customers’ communications for a period of at least six months and up to two years, for possible use by law enforcement.

The Data Retention Directive is highly controversial, if not wildly unpopular throughout the European Union. The directive was strongly opposed by European privacy activists. For several years, mass protests have been held in cities across Europe under the banner of “Freedom Not Fear.” As each country in the EU has implemented the Data Retention Directive in their own law, they have faced challenges in state courts. In 2007, the German Working Group on Data Retention (AK Vorrat) filed a class-action lawsuit representing 35,000 people challenging the German law. The court found the law was unconstitutional and ordered the immediate deletion of all the data stored since the law went into effect in 2008 and the suspension of data collection until a revised national law is proposed. In 2009, the Romanian Constitutional Court ruled that the Romanian implementation of the EU directive fundamentally violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private life and correspondence. The Swedish government has so far refused to implement the Data Retention Directive at all, leading to a lawsuit from the European Commission.

As if the data retention obligations in the Data Retention Directive were not bad enough, European privacy Authorities have found that compliance at national level of Telecom and ISPs with the obligations required from national traffic data retention legislation was unlawful. Data retention periods were found to be as high as ten years, well in excess of the 24-month maximum set in the directive. While the directive itself is limited to the storage of traffic data, Privacy Authorities found that data relating to the contents of communications is also being stored. Several service providers were found to retain URLs of websites, headers of e-mail messages as well as recipients of e-mail messages in “CC”- mode at the destination mail server. And when monitoring phone traffic data, phone companies continuously track the location of the caller.

via EFF Urges EU Data Protection Authorities to Call for the Repeal of the EU Data Retention Directive | Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Google coughs up $8.5 million to settle Buzz privacy suit

The fallout from Google’s Buzz social networking aggregator continues: the company has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over concerns that the service’s original configuration violated users’ privacy. While Google has made numerous changes to the service since its February launch and maintains that it did no wrong, the company has agreed to pay out $8.5 million to end the litigation.

Buzz launched in early February to a lukewarm reception, which was quickly followed by an enormous controversy over concerns that the default settings revealed private information. At the heart of the problem was an auto-follow feature meant to facilitate quick adoption. Users quickly found, however, that it could reveal their Google accounts to people they’d like to avoid. Journalists were concerned that confidential sources could be revealed to the public, while one woman noted that her private Google account was auto-followed by her abusive ex-husband.

via Google coughs up $8.5 million to settle Buzz privacy suit.

Facebook slapped with class-action privacy lawsuit – Computerworld

A Canadian law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook Inc., alleging the social networking company mishandled users’ private information and breached their privacy.

Merchant Law Group LLP filed the lawsuit on July 2 in Queen’s Bench court in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The law firm, which has class-action lawsuits as a large part of its business, filed the suit on behalf of Donald J. Woligroski, a Winnipeg resident and a registered Facebook user, and other class members for an unspecified amount of damages.

The suit contends that Facebook subjected Woligroski to a breach of privacy and the misappropriation of his personal information. It also alleges that Facebook intentionally used his information for commercial purposes; it calls the company’s actions “malicious, deliberate, and oppressive.”

via Facebook slapped with class-action privacy lawsuit – Computerworld.

Google wants to patent technology used to ‘snoop’ Wi-Fi networks – Computerworld

Google’s secret Wi-Fi snooping was powered by new sniffing technology that the company wants to patent, court documents filed Wednesday alleged.

A just-amended complaint in a class-action lawsuit first submitted two weeks ago claims that a patent Google submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in November 2008 shows that the search giant purposefully created technology to gather, analyze and use data sent by users over their wireless networks.

The lawsuit, which was filed by an Oregon woman and a Washington man in a Portland, Ore. federal court May 17, accused Google of violating federal privacy and data acquisition laws when its Street View vehicles snatched data from unprotected Wi-Fi networks as they drove up and down U.S. streets.

Google acknowledged the privacy issue May 14, but said it had not known it was collecting data from unprotected wireless networks until recently.

via Google wants to patent technology used to ‘snoop’ Wi-Fi networks – Computerworld.

Google hit with class-action lawsuit over Wi-Fi snooping – Computerworld

HANNOVER, GERMANY - MARCH 03:  A German Google...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Google‘s secret Wi-Fi sniffing has prompted a class-action lawsuit that could force the company to pay up to $10,000 for each time it snatched data from unprotected hotspots, court documents show.

The lawsuit, which was filed by an Oregon woman and a Washington man in a Portland, Ore. federal court on Monday, accused Google of violating Federal privacy and data acquisition laws.

“When Google created its data collection systems on its GSV [Google Street View] vehicles, it included wireless packet sniffers that, in addition to collecting the user’s unique or chosen Wi-Fi network name (SSID information), the unique number given to the user’s hardware used to broadcast a user’s Wi-Fi signal (MAC address, the GSV data collection systems also collected data consisting of all or part of any documents, e-mails, video, audio, and VoIP information being sent over the network by the user [payload data],” the lawsuit stated.

On Tuesday, the same plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Google from deleting the data, a move the company has said it would make “as soon possible.” Oral arguments on the restraining order are scheduled for Monday before U.S. District Court Judge Janice Stewart.

via Google hit with class-action lawsuit over Wi-Fi snooping – Computerworld.