The Most Active and Friendliest
Affiliate Marketing Community Online!

“Adavice”/  “RollerAds”/

Internet Law and FTC Defense Attorney

Hinch Newman LLP is an Internet marketing compliance and regulatory defense law firm. The practice emphasizes advertising and digital media matters, including conducting legal compliance reviews of advertising campaigns, representing clients in investigations and enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, commercial litigation, advising clients on eCommerce guidelines and promotional marketing programs, and negotiating and drafting legal agreements.






 
Last edited:
Welcome to AffiliateFix @Richard B. Newman !

Hey everyone, give Richard a huge welcome. He is a fiend of myself and Oliver. He is a well know author in the online legal arena and has a significant background in his legal profession and a great history of publishing his knowledge online.

Thanks for joining us Richard!

Looking forward to your posts and threads.

T J
 
Hello, @Richard B. Newman and welcome to AffiliateFix!

We're so happy to have you join us. The legal side of this business is seldom discussed, in part I'm sure because of different laws for different countries but also (and this is just my opinion), very few people are knowledgeably versed in it.

Having you as a trusted source of information is terrific! Thank-you for being here. :)
 
He is a fiend of myself and Oliver.

A fiend you say! What diabolical plans you three have in store for us that will catch us all unawares? :D

======

Hello, Richard. I've had somewhat of an argument with a “fella” on another forum a while back. He was promoting a method where his bot would scrape sites URLs that contained a contact form from various search engines based on keywords. It would then send a one-off email to site owners using the contact form to promote whatever product/service he was trying to hawk. I tried to tell him that even though it didn't violate CAN-SPAM, a hard-nosed prosecutor could probably have a person using that method charged with CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) since the law is written and interpreted so ambiguously due to a site's TOS (Ninth Circuit) that no one ever reads. He, of course, took the opposite stance.

I am crazy for thinking this or does my argument have merit?
 
Please feel free to email me, directly. There are these pesky little things called ethics rules. Cannot provide substantive advice, informally, lest I create an attorney-client relationship. The information I look forward to sharing with everyone, moving forward, is really just for informational purposes. The CFAA litigation landscape is definitely an interesting one...

Perhaps there is an article to post regarding this type of behavior?
 
Late last year, the Ninth Circuit issued a couple of interesting decisions regarding the scope of liability related to data scraping and unauthorized access to employer databases.

First, a former employee (whose access has been revoked) and who uses a current employee’s login credentials to gain network access to his former company’s network, violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Second, a commercial entity that accesses a public website after permission has been explicitly revoked can be civilly liable under the CFAA. That said, the influential Ninth Circuit opined that a violation of the terms of use of a website, without more, might not be the basis for liability under the CFAA. This ruling contradicts language contained in a circuit level decision regarding potential CFAA liability for screen scraping.

Over the years, the CFAA has expanded in context, from hacking to unauthorized scraping of data and wrongfully accessing corporate computer networks.

Takeaway: Website operators should be drafting enforceable agreements aimed at protecting digital assets and taking steps to ensure that third-parties are properly notified regarding the propriety of access.

The above is provided for informational purposes only and is not to be considered legal advice, nor does it create a lawyer-client relationship. No person should act or rely on any information in this post without seeking the advice of an attorney. Information on previous case results does not guarantee a similar future result.
 
U.S. v. Nosal (9th Cir. July 5, 2016)
EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp. (1st Cir. 2003)
Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. (9th July 12, 2016)

Just a very small sample of the universe of CFAA precedent out there...

The above is provided for informational purposes only and is not to be considered legal advice, nor does it create a lawyer-client relationship. No person should act or rely on any information in this post without seeking the advice of an attorney. Information on previous case results does not guarantee a similar future result.
 
Last edited:
Richard,
Firstly, welcome. Question that I would have is do you have experience combating web squatters? I've only had a single instance (& won) combatting a negative SEO campaign, but my lawyer admittedly was unfamiliar with specific web squatting legislation & tackled it as business law. Had it been any other situation, the results would not have been as successful. As such, I wouldn't mind having another go-to resource in that area.
 
Thank you. Been poking around various threads. Notice quite a few interesting businesses / people w/ sophisticated knowledge.

We do have wide variations of members and vendors here. It's eye opening for some and intimidating for a few. In the end, having such an eclectic gathering coupled with solid owners and Moderators, we can "stand tall in the saddle".
 
MI
Back