“Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Peter C. Fitzhugh, Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations (‘HSI’), announced the unsealing of an indictment charging Pablo Renato Rodriguez, Gutemberg Dos Santos, Scott Hughes, Cecilia Millan, and Jackie Aguilar for their roles in an internationally coordinated fraud and money laundering ring involved in defrauding individuals through investments in AirBit Club, a purported cryptocurrency mining and trading company,” states the press release on the United States Department of Justice site.

“Acting United States Attorney Audrey Strauss said: ‘As alleged, the defendants put a modern-day spin on an age-old investment scam, promising extraordinary rates of guaranteed return on phantom investments in cryptocurrencies. Thanks to HSI, the defendants are in custody and facing serious criminal charges.'”

Read the article.

“Shares of San Diego-based chipmaker QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM) rocketed over 15% Thursday after the company topped analysts’ fiscal third quarter expectations and announced that it had come to a settlement agreement with Chinese communications giant Huawei Technologies Co. Qualcomm reported adjusted earnings of 86 cents per share on sales of $4.89 billion, with the wireless chip producer benefiting from the nation’s 5G cellular rollout. Analysts had expected earnings of 72 cents per share on revenues of $4.8 billion,” reports Timothy Smith in Investopia’s Company News.

“Moreover, Qualcomm said that the settlement – which includes money owed from previous quarters and a global patent-licensing agreement – will add about $1.8 billion to its top line and $1.38 in earnings per share during the current quarter. “With the signing of the Huawei agreement, we are now entering a period in which we have multi-year license agreements with every major handset OEM,” Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf told investors, per MarketWatch.”

Read the article.

“HP Inc. will get to keep all the cash, factories and patents Quanta Storage Inc. was ordered to turn over to satisfy a $439 million antitrust judgment from 2019, a federal appeals court ruled,” reported by Laurel Calkins of Bloomberg in Yahoo Finance.

“The Taiwanese disk drive maker was ordered to surrender almost all its assets before its appellate challenge had played out because it failed to post an $85 million bond to prevent early collection of the crippling award. The appellate court did agree to give it more time to comply.”

“‘Quanta risked bet-the-company litigation and lost, so the district court ordered it to hand over the company,’ a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals in New Orleans said Friday in a 21-page ruling.”

“Quanta tried repeatedly in April to delay HP’s push to collect on the judgment. It claimed that coronavirus travel and business restrictions in Taiwan and China, where most of its executives and factories are, prevented it from posting the bond while complying with Taiwanese regulations on asset transfers by publicly traded companies. HP said Quanta was using the pandemic as a ploy to dissipate assets that could be used to satisfy the judgment.”

Read the article.

A $5B lawsuit “accuses Google parent company Alphabet Inc. of quietly amassing data about what people do online and what sites they visit while in the private browser mode, ” reports Andy Meek in BGR’s Tech.

“Google promises consumers that they can ‘browse the web privately’ and stay in ‘control of what information [users] share with Google.’ To prevent information from being shared with Google, Google recommends that its consumers need only launch a browser such as Google Chrome, Safari, Microsoft Edge, or Firefox in ‘private browsing mode.’ Both statements are untrue.”

“In fact, the language in the suit continues, when users take either or both of those steps, the company ‘continues to track, collect, and identify their browsing data in real-time, in contravention of federal and state laws on wiretapping and in violation of consumers’ rights to privacy.'”

“The size of the proposed class of plaintiffs this action could include numbers in the ‘millions,’ according to the suit, which also seeks at least $5,000 in damages per user for violations of California privacy laws as well as federal wiretapping statutes.”

Read the article.

“Texas courts shut down websites and disabled servers late last week in response to a ransomware attack, the Office of Court Administration announced Monday,” reports Dave Boucher in The Dallas Morning News’ Courts.

System administrators discovered early Friday that hackers had taken over at least a portion of the statewide court network and demanded some form of ransom in return for restoring control. In a statement, the administration said the attack began “in the overnight hours” the same day it was discovered.

The state did not specify what exactly hackers requested or how they gained access to the system, and a spokeswoman did not return a phone call seeking comment. The court system is working with state law enforcement to investigate the breach and vowed not to pay any ransom.

The administration runs the information technology services for Texas appellate courts and state judicial agencies, including the Texas courts website.

Read the article.

“Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks, a large media and entertainment law firm, appears to have been the victim of a cyberattack that resulted in the theft of an enormous batch of private information on dozens of celebrities, according to a data security researcher,” reports Todd Spangler and Shirley Halperin in Variety’s Digital News.

“The trove of data allegedly stolen from the New York-based firm by hackers — a total of 756 gigabytes — includes contracts, nondisclosure agreements, phone numbers and email addresses, and ‘personal correspondence,’ according to an image of the hackers’ post provided to Variety by Emsisoft, a cybersecurity software and consulting company specializing in ransomware.”

“The documents purportedly include information about multiple music and entertainment figures, including: Lady Gaga, Madonna, Nicki Minaj, Bruce Springsteen, Mary J. Blige, Ella Mai, Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey, Cam Newton, Bette Midler, Jessica Simpson, Priyanka Chopra, Idina Menzel, HBO’s ‘Last Week Tonight With John Oliver,’ and Run DMC. Facebook also is on the hackers’ hit list.”

Read the article.

“A virtual hearing can be challenging for any regulatory lawyer. It requires relying on technology more than ever to advocate for clients. It can feel like talking to an empty room, even if you’re on camera. Plus it requires attorneys to get results for our clients without the benefit of interpersonal contact with the judge, commissioners or staff. However, having survived my first virtual evidentiary hearing before a state energy commission in April 2020 – and with the benefit of hindsight – it’s like everything lawyers do for the first time in our practice: It’s a challenge until you do it. And like the first oral argument we made or the first hearing we ever litigated, we learn lessons and improve each time,” writes Tara S. Kaushik in Holland & Knight’s Insights.

“We will likely face more than a few virtual hearings given the current pandemic and shelter-in-place orders. Currently, many state regulatory agencies have postponed evidentiary hearings or scheduled briefs and telephonic oral arguments to narrow the issues requiring hearings. But that can only last so long, given that utilities, power grid operators, pipelines and other energy companies have to continue doing business as essential services.

The post provides some practical tips to manage the challenges of a virtual hearing.

Read the article.

“A federal judge on Thursday approved the $5 billion Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine that Facebook agreed to pay last year over privacy violations stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal,” reports Chris Mills Rodrigo in The Hill.

“The settlement — reached in July and the largest in the FTC’s history — came after a lengthy investigation into Facebook.”

“The $5 billion agreement was criticized by lawmakers and other critics of Facebook who said the amount was too small given Facebook’s massive profits, and that it let the platform off too easily.”

“Several advocacy groups, including Public Citizen, Common Sense Media and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, had tried to stop the courts from approving the settlement.”

“U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, acknowledged the concerns in his opinion Thursday, saying they call into question laws governing technology companies.”

Read the article.

“Equifax will pay Massachusetts $18.2 million and change its security practices as part of a settlement between the credit reporting agency and the state stemming from a major 2017 data breach, Attorney General Maura Healey announced Friday,” reports Chris Lisinski in WBUR’s Bostonomix.

“Healey sued Equifax shortly after the company’s alleged missteps exposed personal data, including Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers, of 147 million Americans and 3 million Massachusetts residents. The attorney general said the company also failed to notify consumers in a timely manner once the breach occurred.”

“Her office reached its own settlement with Equifax about nine months after declining to join other states in July 2019 agreements, which the attorney general told reporters allowed Massachusetts to secure a larger payment and more strict conditions on the company.”

Read the article.

“The Supreme Court’s announcement this week that it will hold oral arguments via teleconference for the first time in its history has a small group of America’s top attorneys prepping for the most important phone calls of their careers,” writes Tucker Higgins in CNBC’s Politics.

“The court said that it will hear 10 arguments over the first two weeks in May, including blockbuster disputes over the Electoral College and whether President Donald Trump can keep his tax records shielded from investigators. ”

Read the article.

“Over the last several weeks, virtual meetings have become the new normal for many businesses. Improvements in the technology now mean that virtual meetings have a similar look and feel as in-person meetings. However, there is a much greater risk to valuable information (personal and confidential) in a virtual meeting environment. Some of these risks are associated with the data that are collected and disclosed by the provider of the virtual meeting platform itself. Others arise from inadvertent disclosures or access to virtual meeting rooms by uninvited third parties. Therefore, it is important for organizations to have policies in place that address the need for enhanced cybersecurity and data protection,” warns Kevin Pomfret from Williams Mullen in JD Supra.

“Since Zoom seems to be one of the most popular virtual meeting tools, this alert will discuss how to address these risks on its platform. However, many of these same risks are also associated with other virtual meeting platforms. As a result, it is important to review user instructions, Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policies in order to identify and implement similar protective measures for other virtual meeting services.”

Read the article.

“In the last couple of weeks, nearly all in-person meetings have come to a grinding halt as the world hunkers down during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Litigators, whose practices frequently require in-person contact at depositions, mediations, and court proceedings, have scrambled to find a way to keep their cases on track,” discussed in Pierce Atwood’s Latest Updates.

“As the public health crisis progresses, litigators will have to adapt to an increasing number of social distancing mandates.  Traditional in-person depositions may simply not be feasible in the weeks (or even months) to come.”

“One way for litigators to avoid derailment of discovery is to transition depositions to videoconference.  But unlike the videoconference meetings that many of us are familiar with, taking a deposition by videoconference requires advance planning of logistics and technology.”

Read the article for “tips for videoconference depositions aim to keep your practice running smoothly while we weather COVID-19:”

Read the article.

“Despite the speed and efficiency that comes with signing documents electronically, many business people (and even some lawyers) remain reluctant to accept electronic signatures.  Luckily for those of us who are sheltering in place or practicing social distancing, most electronic signatures are just as valid and enforceable as a traditional manual signature,” writes Ryan P. Siney in Tucker Arensberg’s News + Insights.

“A federal law, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce (ESIGN) Act, and the law of nearly every state (through the adoption of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or similar legislation), provide that electronic signatures are legally enforceable as long as a few basic requirements are satisfied.  These laws require electronically signed contracts to be enforced and treated the same as any document signed by traditional means.  In other words, no contract can be voided or rendered unenforceable merely because it was signed electronically.”

“To qualify as an enforceable electronic signature, there must be evidence of the signer’s intent to execute or accept the agreement.  This is typically accomplished by requiring the signer to take affirmative action, like typing their name or drawing their signature using a mouse or touchscreen.  As long as the signer’s intent to agree to the contract can be discerned from the record, an electronic signature is likely to be enforceable. Courts in some states have enforced contracts where a party’s intent to accept the terms of the agreement were evidenced by email exchange or text message, even though there was no drawn or typed signature.”

Read the article.

“This year may prove to be one in which the concepts of privacy vis-à-vis the government and private concerns may converge,” warns Dante A. Stella in Dykema’s The Firewall.

“In 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), that individuals have an expectation of privacy in cell-tower locations, and consequently, the government must obtain a warrant to retrieve that location data from a carrier. The 5-4 decision held that cell tower data is subject to Fourth Amendment protections because it implicates an individual’s “legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements.” The Court also noted that the data is “detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled,” id. at 2216, and that functioning in modern society does not allow people to simply opt-out of using mobile devices…”

Read the article.

Read the article.

“A signature communicated through an electronic medium like email correspondence is not a binding signature unless agreed to by the parties. In the absence of such agreement, a signature will only be valid if it appears in manuscript form regardless of the medium of communication. When entering into contracts, explicit provision must be made regarding what is meant by ‘signature’,” asks Rosalind Lake and Priyanka Naidoo in Norton Rose Fulbright’s General.

“On 18 March 2020 the Supreme Court of Appeal found that funds were improperly transferred by a financial services provider (FSP) when it received fraudulent emailed instructions from a hacker posing as its client. The court found that the FSP acted without receiving proper instructions and contrary to its mandate because there was no signature on the instructions.”

“In terms of the client’s written mandate to the FSP, the FSP was engaged to act as the client’s agent and invest money on his instructions, provided that such instructions would be sent to a stated fax number or email address ‘with client’s signature’. The client’s email account was hacked by fraudsters. The fraudsters sent three separate emails to the FSP instructing that amounts be transferred to certain accounts. Two of the emails ended with the words ‘Regards, Nick’, and the third email ended with the words ‘Thanks, Nick’.”

Read the article.

“A prominent Chinese dissident may proceed with his malpractice case against a law firm based on allegations that the firm failed adequately to protect his personal data from hackers, a Washington, D.C. district court said in an opinion on February 20.  In his $50 million suit, the plaintiff, Guo Wengui, alleges that after he retained the firm, someone (assumed to be associated with the Chinese government) penetrated the firm’s computer servers, gained access to his confidential information and published it on the Internet,” reports Karen Rubin and Tom Zych in The Law for Lawyers Today’s Malpractice.

“The district court turned back the firm’s motion to dismiss and allowed most of Wengui’s claims to go forward.  The case bears watching as cyberattacks increasingly target law firms, and legal IT teams struggle to stay one step ahead of security threats.”

Read the article.

“New court filings reveal that the Department of Defense wants to ‘reconsider certain aspects’ of its decision to award Microsoft with the coveted $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract,” reports Taylor Soper in GeekWire.

“The latest legal development is part of Amazon’s protest over the prestigious cloud computing deal, known as JEDI. Amazon Web Services sued the federal government after Microsoft emerged as the surprise winner of the JEDI contract last year.”

“In the new filing, a motion for voluntary remand, the DoD said that it ‘wishes to reconsider its award decision in response to the other technical challenges presented by AWS.’ The DoD is asking for 120 days to assess the matter. It wants to specifically examine one issue related to ‘online marketplace offerings.'”

Read the article.

“The possibility of a cybersecurity incident—and ensuing litigation—is a fact of life for almost every business. Even companies that do not process or handle consumer information collect personal information about their employees that can be targeted by hackers or phishing scams or even inadvertently disclosed, exposing the company to potential liability,” warns Seth Harrington, Michelle Visser and David Cohen in Orrick’s blog.

“While eliminating cybersecurity litigation risk entirely likely is not feasible, recent cases do highlight some steps that companies seeking to reduce potential exposure to cybersecurity litigation can take:
(1)  Recognize that pre-incident statements about the company’s cybersecurity measures can be used to sustain deception-related claims.
(2)  Assess the “reasonableness” of your cybersecurity, despite the difficulty of doing so.
(3)  Pay attention to how you structure cybersecurity initiatives to protect related documents and communications based on the attorney-client privilege and work product protection.
(4)  Recognize that your statements about a cybersecurity incident may be relied on by courts to sustain plaintiffs’ claims.
(5)  Consider arbitration clauses, but do so cautiously.
(6)  Consider opportunities to contractually allocate or disclaim liability.”

Read the article.

“A couple of years ago, a Reuters investigation uncovered another revamp of immigration policies under President Trump. ICE has a Risk Classification Assessment Tool that decides whether or not arrested immigrants can be released on bail or their own recognizance. The algorithm had apparently undergone a radical transformation under the new administration, drastically decreasing the number of detainees who could be granted release. The software now recommends detention in almost every case, no matter what mitigating factors are fed to the assessment tool,” reports Techdirt in Above the Law’s Technology.

“ICE is now being sued for running software that declares nearly 100% of detained immigrants too risky to be released pending hearings. The ACLU’s lawsuit  opens with some disturbing stats that show how ICE has rigged the system to keep as many people detained as possible.”

Read the article.