This issue arose in Shamara King v. General Information
Services, Inc., a "consumer class action based upon
Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. ("FCRA")." In her
complaint, Ms. King brought suit "on behalf of thousands
of employment applicants throughout the country who have been the
subject of prejudicial, misleading and illegal background reports
performed by the Defendant and sold to employers. Defendant has
adopted and maintained a policy and practice of knowingly,
intentionally, recklessly and willfully reporting outdated adverse
information that is required to be excluded from the consumer
reports that it sells."
The defendant GIS then moved to dismiss the case, claiming that
FCRA was unconstitutional:
In sum, [the Supreme Court's decision in]
Sorrell [v. IMS Health] marks a dramatic shift in the
protection afforded to content- and speaker-based restrictions on
truthful commercial information. As the dissent in Sorrell noted,
its holding has sweeping effects on many other laws restricting
disclosure of commercial information, including FCRA. Because a
prohibition on disclosure of truthful information regarding an
individual's criminal record falls squarely within
Sorrell's holding, [the FCRA] is unconstitutional. Accordingly,
the Court should enter judgment on the pleadings in favor of GIS on
Plaintiff's [FCRA] claim.
This is certainly a creative defense, although it may be asking
more than a federal district court is willing to do. It could be
very interesting to see this argument get to an appellate
To view Foley Hoag's Security, Privacy and The Law
Blog please click
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Join NECEC— the premier voice of businesses building a world-class clean energy hub in the Northeast—and Foley Hoag’s Energy and Cleantech practice for a not-to-be-missed discussion with offshore wind developers, leading public officials, investors and experts at the cutting edge of the Northeast’s emerging offshore wind market.
After decades of speculation about offshore wind’s future in the United States, the industry that has long powered grids in Europe has finally arrived in the Northeast. In the last year America’s first offshore wind project--off the coast of Rhode Island--started spinning and delivering power to the grid, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law a bill authorizing the procurement of 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo committed to 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind off the coast of New York by 2030. Meanwhile, major utilities have announced agreements with developers to purchase energy generated from the projects planned for the eastern seaboard.
The questions that BYOD policies seek to answer are these: (1) Who owns your device? (2) Who owns the information on your device? (3) What happens if that information (or the device itself) gets lost or stolen?
Orrick Cybersecurity & Data Privacy lawyers Emily Tabatabai and Shea Leitch co-authored an article for the International Association of Privacy Professionals' Privacy Tracker on the continued expansion...
He advises on handling internal data breach investigations; supervising forensic examinations and coordinating with law enforcement in investigations of criminal attacks; and regulatory investigations and enforcement actions by the FTC and HHS/OCR.
Privacy advocates in both the United States and Europe are urging regulators to take a hard look at the privacy ramifications of internet-connected toys, which are often conventional toys augmented by companion mobile applications.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).