In what may signal regulators’ growing focus on advertisers’ use of social media, particularly in regulated industries, on July 29, 2010, the FDA issued its first Facebook-related citation in connection with Novartis’ use of Facebook’s share function on its Tasigna® website. By clicking on the “share” button on the website, consumers could post Novartis-created information about Tasigna® (“Shared Content”) on their Facebook profile walls, which would then be sent to the consumers’ “friends” via the newsfeed. It also allowed a consumer to send a separate message containing the Shared Content to their “friends” on Facebook. The FDA cited four (4) ways in which the website and the Facebook “share” widget violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the FDA implementing regulations: (i) omission of risk information, (ii) broadening of drug indication, (iii) unsubstantiated superiority claims/overstatement of efficacy, and (iv) failure to submit. Read more »
Social media and other electronic messages continue to find their way into court. Three recent cases — from Minnesota, Indiana, and California — illustrate the trend.
LinkedIn Posts Lead to Lawsuit. In a case making news in the employment law world, a recruiting firm has sued a former recruiter for sending LinkedIn messages to its clients in violation of the employee’s non-compete agreements.
TEKsystems is a technology staffing and services company. In an effort to protect its client and prospect lists, client service agreements, billing rates, client preferences, and other confidential information, TEKsystems required its employees to sign three “restrictive covenants” — an agreement not to compete, an agreement not to solicit clients, and an agreement not to disclose confidential information. Read more »
Facebook has been under a microscope lately. So founder Mark Zuckerberg, criticized for keeping his head down in the face of growing criticism, penned this op-ed for the Washington Post. Zuckerberg acknowledges some mistakes, and that “the biggest message we have heard recently is that people want easier control over their information.” He promises in the coming weeks ”privacy controls that are much simpler to use.” [UPDATE: at his May 26 press conference, reported here, he said the changes will include simpler controls for determining whether information is visible to friends, friends of friends, or everyone, and an easy way to turn off "instant personalization."] We eagerly await the changes, as well as the soon-to-be-published David Kirkpatrick book The Facebook Effect — The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World. Indeed, we plan to host the author as part of a star-studded Gotham Media Ventures panel on June 18th. For good networking and an insider’s view of the business of Facebook, register here. Frankfurt Kurnit tech group chair Jerry Spiegel moderates. Only a few seats remain.
What is the significance of these numbers? If you guessed “number of words in Facebook’s privacy policy compared to number of words in the US Constitution,” go to the head of the class. As today’s New York Times reported here, the Facebook privacy policy has grown from 1,004 words in 2005 to 5,830 today. Facebook’s privacy policy word count not only has eclipsed the US Constitution, it has also passed other major social networks such as Flickr (384 words), Twitter (1,203), Friendster (1,977), and MySpace (2,290). According to the Times‘ analysis, a Facebook user now needs to click through more than 50 privacy buttons with more than 170 options in order to opt out of full disclosure of his or her personal information. The complexity and arc of the current policy – the evolution of which is neatly summarized here – has driven some interest groups to file a complaint with the FTC. More legal and regulatory action is coming. You can count on it.
Facebook’s new online social paradigm, called “The Open Graph,” has been stirring up controversy. For a quick review of the latest commentary, check out Nick O’Neill’s post about privacy, Pete Cashmore’s article on “social links” and how they may change the way we search the web, and Farhad Manjoo’s article on “Facebook’s Plan to Take Over the Web.”
The New York Times is reporting that a broad coalition of organizations including the ACLU, the EFF, Google, AT&T and Microsoft have formed a new group called the Digital Due Process Coalition to push Congress to strengthen Internet privacy laws. Facebook is notably absent from the group.
If you’re one of the 350 million Facebook users who checked your homepage Wednesday morning (or saw this CNN report) then you already heard about Founder Mark Zuckerberg’s letter detailing upcoming Facebook changes. According to Mr. Zuckerberg, the goal is to “create a simpler model for privacy control where you can set content to be available to only your friends, friends of your friends, or everyone.” Read more »
How can we ensure our online valuables aren’t “erased” when we die? The New York Times had an interesting essay on the legal status of digital assets like Facebook pages and property in virtual worlds — such as items you purchase with “Linden Dollars” on Second Life. The issue is not academic. The article says that the virtual goods market in the US “is expected surpass $1 billion this year,” citing sources.
Are digital executors next? Stay tuned.
A civil lawsuit was filed in California on Monday by five Facebook users claiming that Facebook violates California’s privacy laws. According to a report in the Washington Post, “[t]he complaint alleges that Facebook violates California privacy and online privacy laws by disseminating personal information posted by users to third parties. The lawsuit also alleges that Facebook engages in data mining and harvesting without fully disclosing those practices to its members.” Now that Maine is about to enact an even stricter privacy regime (at least with respect to kids), can we expect more lawsuits against Facebook?
Facebook is due to give its final response to Canada’s privacy commissioner today regarding its alleged failure to comply with Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the country’s private-sector privacy law. See this article in the Ottawa Citizen. Will Facebook voluntarily change its policy regarding sharing information with third party application providers? Will any changes only be effective respecting Canadian users or for all users worldwide?
FDA, Social Media | editor | 
August 9, 2010 1:50 pm | 
Comments (1) 
Subscribe