United States: The Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Remedy Background And Implementation

The recent passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA") creates a new, powerful remedy for trade secret holders in an era where misappropriation and theft of trade secrets is on the rise. With the developing landscape of cybersecurity and globalization, an increased demand exists from both companies and consumers1 for further trade secret protections. Recent cyber attacks involving "hacktivists"2 and foreign entities have highlighted the change in the traditional actors who misappropriate trade secrets.3 The involvement of foreign actors and governments as offenders of trade secret theft and cyber espionage, coupled with the shift from hard data storage to electronic storage and the growth of the Internet, have made trade secret protection and enforcement actions increasingly complex. Technological developments allowing information to easily and quickly pass through domestic and international jurisdictions have also made trade secret protection more difficult.

Although existing state laws4 and federal statutes (e.g., the Economic Espionage Act ("EEA")5 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"))6 provide specific recourse, certain gaps in trade secret law and a lack of uniformity have persisted. For example, the CFAA provides a private civil cause of action for persons or businesses, but federal courts are divided as to whether the CFAA applies only to true "computer hacking" activity or more broadly to misappropriation of proprietary information or trade secrets without accessing a computer.7 To answer this, and remedy other shortcomings in the EEA and CFAA, the legislature introduced and passed an amendment to the EEA—the Defend Trade Secrets Act—which now allows for a federal private civil cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets.

Background: The Economic Espionage Act

As amended, the EEA makes the theft of a trade secret a federal crime where (a) the information is stolen for monetary gain and (b) when the theft "relates to a product in interstate or foreign commerce,"8 or "when the intended beneficiary [of the stolen trade secret] is a foreign power."9 The two main sections of the EEA that govern trade secrets are § 1832, regarding the theft of trade secrets, and § 1831, regarding economic espionage. The statute provides significant penalties, including imprisonment for up to ten years for trade secret theft, and up to fifteen years for economic espionage, as well as substantial fines.10 Additionally, a court may assign the same penalties for attempt or conspiracy for either offense.11 The EEA did not provide a civil private right of action.12

The elements of trade-secret theft and economic espionage are substantially similar, with a few key differences. For example, trade secret theft requires: (i) an "intent to have the information benefit someone other than the owner";13 (ii) "an intent to injure the owner";14 and (iii) the misappropriated trade secret must relate to "or include[] . . . a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce."15 In contrast, economic espionage "must involve an intent to benefit a foreign entity or at least involve the knowledge that the offense will have that result."16 Economic espionage does not require an intent to injure the trade secret owner or a commerce nexus.17

A unique feature of the EEA is its extraterritorial application. The EEA's legislative history "specifically identifie[s] the circumstances under which [Congress] intended the economic espionage and theft of trade secrets provisions to apply overseas."18 The EEA "applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if – (1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws of the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States."19 The EEA does not protect American businesses in cases where the offender is a foreign national and the "act" wholly occurs in a foreign country. This limitation on the extraterritoriality of the EEA is a noteworthy restraint on the criminal jurisdiction of this statute abroad.

Although not included in the statute's text, the Attorney General of the United States has agreed in writing that "for a period of five years, the Department of Justice would require that all prosecutions brought under the EEA must first be approved by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division."20 The requirement of prosecutorial approval for both §§ 1831 and 1832 lasted for a period of five years, until October 11, 2001.21 The Attorney General subsequently renewed the prosecutorial approval requirement for § 1831 (economic espionage), but no longer required approval for § 1832 (trade secret theft).22 Prosecutors are still strongly urged to consult with senior officials before initiating a § 1832 case.23

The EEA, while a powerful tool in prosecuting trade secret thefts, has only provided for criminal liability. The DTSA creates a civil cause of action, which will result in a more uniform and robust federal regime for addressing trade secret misappropriation.

Defend Trade Secrets Act: Overview

The DTSA amendment to the EEA adds an additional layer of protection for trade secret owners. The principal provision of the DTSA will be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b) and reads: "An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce."24 This new subsection creates a federal private, civil cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets that satisfy the commerce nexus required by the EEA.25 The DTSA also promotes uniformity by defining the terms "trade secret" and "misappropriation" in language identical to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA").26 Additionally, the DTSA, like the UTSA, expands the scope of liability for misappropriation by "permit[ting] trade secret owners to sue not only for the actual or threated 'disclosure or use' of their trade secrets 'without express or implied consent,' but also for the 'acquisition' of their trade secret by 'a person who knows or has reason to know that [they] w[ere] acquired by improper means."27

Notably, the DTSA does not preempt state trade secret laws. The DTSA will not prevent victims of trade secret theft from pursuing both federal and state civil causes of action.28

Congress tried—albeit unsuccessfully—to enact similar legislation in the past.29 Now, however, a bipartisan group of both legislators introduced the DTSA in both the Senate and House in July 2015, noting that state laws have not afforded enough protection to stop "interstate theft" and the current federal criminal law regime is "insufficient."30 The overwhelming level of bipartisan support for the DTSA led to almost unanimous votes in both the Senate and the House.

Actions and Significant Provisions

Both versions of the DTSA were introduced on July 29, 2015, with the goal of a bipartisan bill that will "harmonize" trade secret law, offer damages and injunctions for private civil actions, and "be consistent" with existing remedies for other forms of intellectual property.31 However, the Senate version of the bill was ultimately the version that received the most traction and encompassed what became the final language of the bill.

Many of the modifications addressing initial concerns with the Senate version of the DTSA were discussed at a December 2, 2015 hearing.32 The comments and concerns raised during the December 2015 hearing resulted in an amended version of the DTSA, via a substitute version and separate amendment, and was favorably voted out of Committee for consideration by the entire Senate on January 28, 2016.33

The January 28, 2016 amendments to the DTSA address the issues raised in the December 2015 hearing, including many of the more controversial sections, such as the ex parte seizure provisions and injunctive remedies.34 In order to achieve the goal of uniform standards for trade secret law, the Judiciary Committee amended the definition of a trade secret to track the definition in the UTSA.35 The Committee also changed the statute of limitations for actions brought under this section from five years to three years to be consistent with the UTSA.36 Another significant change the Committee made to align the DTSA with the UTSA was to lower the amount of exemplary damages from three times to two times total compensatory damages.37

To address concerns of potential abuse, the Committee clarified that an ex parte seizure is only available in "extraordinary circumstances," and "the target of the seizure must be in 'actual' possession of the trade secret and property to be seized."38 Additionally, only federal law enforcement can carry out the seizure with specific instructions from a federal district court on the timing of seizures and whether law enforcement can use force to access locked areas.39 The court may also appoint a special master to confidentially sort through the seized materials "to locate and isolate all misappropriated trade secret information and to facilitate the return of unrelated property and data to the person from whom the property was seized."40 In "exceptional circumstances" where an injunction is inequitable, a court may "condition[] future use of the trade secret upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which such use could have been prohibited."41

The DTSA will also allow for attorney's fees for actions brought under this provision where "the misappropriation is made in bad faith . . . , a motion to terminate an injunction is made or opposed in bad faith, or the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated."42

 To balance concerns regarding employee mobility with protections for trade secrets, the new language provides that injunctive relief may not be granted if it would "prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship."43 The new language further provides that a court may only restrict employment if there is "evidence of threatened misappropriation." Employment restrictions may not be based solely on the fact that a person possesses proprietary information.44 Employment restrictions may not conflict with existing state laws "prohibiting restraints" on lawful employment.45

The substituted version of the DTSA also included an amendment to § 1832 of the EEA, entitled "Trade Secret Theft Enforcement."46 This section will increase criminal penalties for trade secret theft and adds a provision that will allow trade secret owners to file a sealed statement with the court explaining why the trade secret should be protected.47 Lastly, this section amends the RICO Act to include violations of the EEA relating to economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets as a predicate act.48

Senators Grassley and Leahy also added a separate amendment that provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for whistleblowers if they disclose a trade secret in the context of reporting illegal activity.49 This section creates an "affirmative duty" on employers to give their employees notice of this new immunity provision in "any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information."50 If an employer fails to comply, it may be barred from recovering attorney's fees or exemplary damages against an employee.51 Further, the definition of "employee" is construed broadly to include contractors and consultants.52

Commentary and Support

Immediately preceding the Senate Judiciary Committee's Executive Business Meeting on January, 28, 2016, Senator Hatch and Senator Coons, both authors and sponsors of the bill, published an article in support of the DTSA.53 Their article emphasized the lack of federal civil law protection for trade secrets and the harsh economic consequences of trade secret theft.54 The Senators also highlighted that even with DuPont's success pursuing a criminal investigation under the EEA for the theft of trade secrets relating to its Kevlar body armor, there is a lack of resources to investigate the growing number of trade secret theft cases.55 Senators Hatch and Coons called upon Congress to pass the DTSA, which has strong bipartisan and industry support.

The DTSA garnered wide support from both sides of the aisle in Congress and from numerous stakeholders. At the time of the December 2, 2015 hearing, the proposed legislation was supported by over forty companies and associations, including DuPont, the American Bar Association, Corning, Microsoft, Intel, General Electric, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Pfizer, Adobe, The Boeing Company, Nike, Procter & Gamble, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Internet Commerce Coalition.56

On April 4, 2016, the Senate unanimously passed the DTSA, with a vote of 87-0, and has received positive support from the Obama administration.57 Notably, the House of Representatives also passed this bill on April 27, 2016, with a vote of 410-2, and garnered the same level of overwhelming bipartisan support. Once President Obama signs the bill into law, the law will go into effect on the day of enactment and will apply to any misappropriation that occurs on or after that day.58

Footnotes

1. While consumers are not typically direct targets of trade secret theft, the personal identifying information of consumers can be implicated in more general cyber attacks, such as those aimed at data mining for a business' trade secrets or proprietary information.

2. "Hacktivists" are a new type of cyber hacker that has emerged in the last several years. The difference between a cyber hacker and a "hacktivist" is that hacktivists have a more nuanced purpose in their hacking activities, such as protesting political and social injustices. See Natalie Wolchover, Best Hacks by the Hacktivist Group 'Anonymous,' LIVESCIENCE (Nov. 11, 2011, 10:33 AM), http://www.livescience.com/33599-best-hacks-anonymous-hacktivism.html (detailing noteworthy hacks by one of the more well-known hacktivist groups, Anonymous).

3. See e.g., Robert Hackett, Hackers Are Holding a Hollywood Hospital for Ransom, FORTUNE, (Feb. 16, 2016, 10:55 AM), http://fortune.com/2016/02/16/hollywood-hospital-hack-ransom/; Bob Orr, Why the U.S. was sure North Korea hacked Sony, CBS NEWS, (Jan. 19, 2015, 6:38 PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-the-u-s-government-was-sure-north-korea-hacked-sony/; Eric Tucker, Guilty plea in attempted cyber-attack on US govt. computers, YAHOO! NEWS, (Feb. 2, 2016, 6:21 PM), http://news.yahoo.com/guilty-plea-attempted-cyber-attack-us-govt-computers-202324618.html.

4. The different types of remedies available under state law are mostly civil causes of action, and depending on the circumstances of the case, can include possible claims for the misappropriation of trade secrets, other tortious acts related to business, contract law, duties of confidence, unfair competition law, employment law, and antitrust law. See David S. Levine & Sharon K. Sandeen, Here Come the Trade Secret Trolls, 71 WASH. & LEE L. REV. ONLINE 230, 244 (2015).

5. Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1839 (2012). The EEA was amended twice during the 112th Congress. The Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012 clarified the jurisdiction of § 1832 for the theft of trade secrets after the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a) (amending § 1832 of the EEA). The second amendment, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012, increased the maximum fine levels for economic espionage. Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012, 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a), (b) (amending § 1831 of the EEA).

6. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (2012).

7. See David R. Fertig, Christopher J. Cox, & John A Stratford, The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015: Attempting To Make a Federal Case Out of Trade Secret Theft – Part I, 1 PRATT'S PRIVACY & CYBERSECURITY LAW REPORT 60, 61 (Oct. 2015). There is a split among the federal appellate courts as to what the phrase "exceeds authorized access means" in the CFAA—i.e., whether this phrase covers only access restrictions, or use restrictions as well. Stuyvie Pyne, The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Circuit Split and Efforts to Amend, BERKELEY TECH. L. J. (Mar. 31, 2014), http://btlj.org/2014/03/the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-circuit-split-and-efforts-to-amend/ ("The Ninth Circuit (since joined by the Fourth Circuit) held that one 'exceeds authorized access' to a computer by violating an access restriction (e.g., do not access File X), but not by violating a use restriction (e.g., do not use the computer for non-business purposes). This interpretation conflicts with the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, which have held that use restrictions are within the scope of "exceeds authorized access.") (referencing United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012))).

8. CHARLES DOYLE, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R42681, STEALING TRADE SECRETS AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE: OVERVIEW OF 18 U.S.C. 1831 AND 1832 at Summary (2014) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1832 (2012) (theft of trade secrets)).

9. Id. at Summary (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (2012) (economic espionage)).

10. Id. at 1 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832(a), 1831(a) (2012)).

11. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831(a)(4), (5), 1832(a)(4), (5) (2012)).

12. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832(b), 1831(b) (2012)).

13. Id. at 9.

14.Id.

15. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a) (2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

16. Id.

17. Id.

18. Id. at 12 (citing H.R. REP. NO. 104-788, at 14 (1996) ("Territorial Application.--To rebut the general presumption against the extraterritoriality of U.S. criminal laws, this subsection makes it clear that the Act is meant to apply to the specified conduct occurring beyond U.S. borders. To ensure that there is some nexus between the ascertaining of such jurisdiction and the offense, however, extraterritorial jurisdiction exists only if the offender is a United States citizen or permanent resident alien, an organization substantially owned or controlled by United States citizens or permanent resident aliens, or is incorporated in the United States. Alternatively, extraterritorial jurisdiction will exist if an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.")).

19. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2012)).

20. Id. at 12 & n.78 (citing and quoting U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL § 1122 (June 2015)).

21. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL § 1122 (June 2015).

22. Id.

23. Id. ("Approval for § 1831 cases should be obtained from the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, through the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. The approval requirement was not extended for cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1832, however, prosecutors are strongly urged to consult with the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section prior to filing charges under § 1832.").

24. Defend Trade Secrets Act, S. 1890, 114th Congress § 2(a) (2016) ("DTSA") (final text of bill).

25. See Fertig, Cox, & Stratford, supra note 7, at 63.

26. James Pooley, What You Need to Know About the Amended Defend Trade Secrets Act, PATENTLYO (Jan. 31, 2016), http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/01/amended-defend-secrets.html. The UTSA was created as a model law as a means to codify "the basic principles of common law trade secret protection" and was an attempt to unify the development of trade secret law. UNIF. TRADE SECRETS ACT, prefatory note (1979). To date, almost all of the states and the District of Columbia have enacted the UTSA in some form, with the exception of Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina. Even though the intent of the UTSA was to provide a uniform codification of the basic principles of trade secret protection, many states have altered the language of the UTSA in some way. The definitions in the DTSA intend to address this issue by creating a uniform set of definitions under federal law.

27. See Fertig, Cox, & Stratford, supra note 7, at 63-64 (citing Defend Trade Secrets Act, S. 1890, 114th Cong. § 2(b)(3) (2015)).

28. See Protecting Trade Secrets: the Impact of Trade Secret Theft on American Competitiveness and Potential Solutions to Remedy This Harm Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2015) (statement of Tom Beall, Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Corning Incorporated, in response to a question from Senator Hatch) ("[T]his particular law is not intended to preempt state law.")(quoted language is from transcript of hearing).

29. Fertig, Cox, & Stratford, supra note 7, at 62.

30. Fertig, Cox, & Stratford, supra note 7, at 62.

31. PRESS RELEASE, OFFICE OF SEN. ORRIN HATCH, SENATE, HOUSE LEADERS INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN, BICAMERAL BILL TO PROTECT TRADE SECRETS (Jul. 29, 2015), available at http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/7/senate-house-leaders-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-bill-to-protect-trade-secrets; see also H.R. 3326, 114th Cong. (2015); S. 1890, 114th Cong. (2015).

32. Defend Trade Secrets Act, S. 1890, 114th Cong. (2016), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1890/all-actions?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22s1890%5C%22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1 (all actions related to the history of this proposed legislation).

33. No date has been set for the Senate to vote on S. 1890, but it has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar.

34. See Executive Business Meeting Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2016), http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/executive-business-meeting-01-28-16 (links to text of substitute and Leahy-Grassley amendments to the DTSA).

35. Pooley, supra note 26.

36. Pooley, supra note 26.

37. See Pooley, supra note 26.

38. Pooley, supra note 26; see also DTSA,s § 2(a) (referring to the new language of §1836(b)(2)(A)).

39. Pooley, supra note 26; DTSA, § 2(a) (referring to the new language of §1836(b)(2)(B)(iv)).

40. Pooley, supra note 26; DTSA, § 2(a) (referring to the new language of §1836(b)(2)(D)(iv)).

41. DTSA, § 2(a) (referring to the new language of §1836(b)(3)(A)(iii)).

42. Id. (referring to the new language of §1836(b)(3)(D)).

43. Id. (referring to the new language of §1836(b)(3)(A)); see Pooley, supra note 26.

44. Pooley, supra note 26 (discussing the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine, which has been "misconstrued" as "the equivalent of a post-hoc judicially-imposed non-compete agreement," and how this change would eliminate the potential harmful impact of this doctrine as applied in various jurisdictions).

45.DTSA, § 2(a) (referring to the new language of §1836 (b)(3)(A)(i)(II)).

46. Id. § 3; Pooley, supra note 26. 

47. DTSA, § 3(a)(2)(A) (referring to the new language of §1835).

48. Id. § 3(a)(2)(A) (referring to the new language of §1835).

49. DTSA, § 7; see also Pooley, supra note 26.

50. DTSA, § 7(a)(3) (referring to the new language of §1833(b)(3)(A)).

51. Id. § 7(a)(3) (referring to the new language of §1833(b)(3)(C)).

52. Id. § 7(a)(3) (referring to the new language of §1833(b)(4)).

53. Senator Orrin Hatch & Senator Chris Coons, Pass the Defend Trade Secrets Act, THE HILL, (Jan. 27, 2016, 7:00 PM), http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/267205-pass-the-defend-trade-secrets-act.

54. Id.

55. Id. ("Last year, in fact, the Department of Justice brought only 15 criminal cases for trade secret theft.").

56. See Protecting Trade Secrets: the Impact of Trade Secret Theft on American Competitiveness and Potential Solutions to Remedy This Harm Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2015) (statement of Senator Hatch) (listing companies and associations that have endorsed the DTSA) (language is from transcript of hearing); Gene Quinn, Defend Trade Secrets Act ready for markup in Senate Judiciary Committee, IPWATCHDOG (Dec. 2, 2015), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/02/defend-trade-secrets-act-ready-for-markup-in-senate-judiciary-committee/id=63571/.

57. Richard Cowan & Andrew Chung, Senate unanimously approves trade secrets bill, REUTERS (Apr. 4, 2016, 6:35 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-secrets-idUSKCN0X11Y3.

58. See Dennis Crouch, Implementing and Interpreting the Defend Trade Secrets Act, PATENTLYO (Apr. 27, 2016), http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/04/implementing-interpreting-secrets.html?utm_target/=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatentlyO+%28Dennis+Crouch%27s+Patently-O%29.

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions