توسط جان کی هیگینز
31 مارس 2021، ساعت 5:00 بعد از ظهر PT
ارائهدهندگان بزرگ فناوری اطلاعات که با گسترش دعاوی دسته جمعی مرتبط با حمایت از مصرفکننده مخالف هستند، پرونده خود را به دادگاه عالی ایالات متحده بردهاند.
این شرکتها امیدوارند که دادگاه حکم دادگاه پایینتری را که باعث میشود مصرفکنندگان در طرح دعوای دستهجمعی آسانتر شوند، لغو کند. شرکت های فناوری ممکن است مجبور نباشند برای تصمیم گیری خیلی منتظر بمانند. دیوان عالی کشور استدلال های شفاهی خود را در TransUnion LLC در مقابل رامیرز سهشنبه و انتظار میرود که تا پایان ژوئن تصمیمی صادر شود.
At issue is the legal standard governing how members of a consumer class can demonstrate to a court that they have experienced “harm” in the management of their personal data.
شرکتهای فناوری اطلاعات اساساً استدلال میکنند که حکم دادگاه تجدیدنظر ناحیه نهم ایالات متحده به اشتباه به اعضای یک کلاس اجازه میدهد ادعای آسیبی کنند که بسیار فراتر از استانداردهای فعلی برای تعریف آسیب است. این شرکت ها ادعا می کنند که حکم مدار نهم کسب و کارها را در معرض اقامه دعوای دسته جمعی ناموجه قرار می دهد.
بر اساس یک گزارش کوتاه توسط eBay، فیس بوک، گوگل و چندین انجمن صنعت فناوری که به طور مشترک به دیوان عالی ارائه شده است، هیچ دلیل قانونی برای ادعای هرگونه آسیب واقعی یا ملموس برای طبقه مصرف کنندگان ذکر شده در پرونده وجود ندارد.
The companies contend that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will have an impact well beyond the statutes involved in that case.
If left intact, the court’s opinion would “degrade” legal standards and would “open the floodgates for abusive litigation that redresses no injury and benefits no consumer,” the companies said. The Ninth Circuit ruling could affect such e-commerce laws as the Stored Communications Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Wiretap Act, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, according to the brief.
The case before the Supreme Court was initiated by major credit reporting agency TransUnion which is seeking to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision in رامیرز علیه TransUnion LLC. The company asked the court to rule on whether the U.S. Constitution and related procedures “permit a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.”
هشدارهای داده های شخصی موجب دعوی قضایی شد
The case evolved from allegations that data references used by TransUnion included inaccurate and potentially damaging “matches” of names on consumer credit alerts.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, during the time frame of the case, TransUnion’s matching process “consisted solely of a ‘name-only’ comparison of consumers’ first and last names” and the names on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) list of terrorists, drug traffickers and other individuals prohibited from doing business in the United States for national security reasons.
In February 2011, while attempting to purchase a car, Sergio L. Ramirez learned that TransUnion had added an inaccurate OFAC alert to his consumer report. After receiving the alert, the dealership refused to sell the car to Ramirez, who later contended that he was “embarrassed, shocked, and scared” to learn that his name was associated with the OFAC list, according to DOJ’s summary of the case.
Disturbed by his experience, including inquiries to TransUnion which he claimed resulted in further confusion about the alert, Ramirez filed a suit alleging that TransUnion’s practices violated various protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
در سطح دادگاه منطقه ای ایالات متحده، هیئت منصفه به نفع رامیرز نتیجه گرفت و TransUnion را به دلیل عدم رعایت الزامات FCRA مقصر دانست. دادگاه منطقه همچنین به 8,000 نفری که گفته می شود تحت تأثیر اطلاعات اشتباه قرار گرفته اند، وضعیت دادخواهی گروهی اعطا کرد. خسارات 60 میلیون دلار تعیین شد که بعداً توسط Ninth Circuit به 40 میلیون دلار کاهش یافت.
Court proceedings revealed that TransUnion’s reliance on the OPAC data system resulted in a “matching” process which did not definitively screen matches to specific individuals but only to similar names, resulting in the potential for misleading identifications.
In the case of Ramirez, date of birth information showed he was improperly classified. Ramirez’s distress resulted from the distribution of the inaccurate report to a third party — the car dealer — according to the Ninth Circuit decision. A key element in the case hinges on the third-party disclosure issue.
بر اساس تحلیل موسسه حقوقی آکین گامپ, “despite the fact that the majority of class members did not have their credit reports disseminated to third parties, the Ninth Circuit found that the mere fact that the credit reports were available to potential creditors and employers upon request sufficed to show a ‘material risk of harm’ to the concrete interests of all class members.”
Thus, class actions could proceed, according to the ruling. The Justice Department’s analysis noted that the Ninth Circuit characterized the nature of such inaccurate alerts as “severe,” with reports available to third parties “at a moment’s notice.” The Department filed an amicus brief only for the purpose of supporting the need for clarification of applicable law and rulings.
TransUnion Claims Decision ‘Eviscerates’ Standards
TransUnion, in its petition to the Supreme Court, challenged the notion that the mere existence of the data base references resulted in harm. The company noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia “has squarely held that plaintiffs lack standing to seek damages under FCRA based on the bare existence in their credit files of information never disseminated to any third party.” The Ninth Circuit ruling “eviscerates” both Constitutional and procedural standards, TransUnion said.
The company emphasized that the name references in the data base were not individually definitive and simply presented “potential” matches. TransUnion said that it “made it crystal clear” that the appearance of a name in its alert system “should be the beginning and not the end” of any OFAC inquiry.
In a 2018 financial report referencing the jury decision, TransUnion said “we continue to believe that we have not willfully violated any law.” In a statement provided to the E-Commerce Times, through spokesperson David Blumberg, TransUnion said “We do not comment on pending litigation.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a brief supporting TransUnion, noted that for an overwhelmingly large component of the class, no reports ever reached a third party. The Ninth Circuit’s decision was “flimsy,” and based on assertions that were too speculative and abstract for legal purposes, the Chamber said.
ریسک پایگاه داده با تست آسیب ملاقات می کند
In asserting that the Ninth Circuit ruling was correct, attorneys representing Ramirez said the relevant harm for allowing class action status “is not the sale or publication of a credit report containing a terrorist record, it is the risk of significant injury of that inaccurate information being reported.”
The risk of real harm that TransUnion imposed on all class members “arose from both the gravity and the likelihood of dissemination of its false OFAC alerts,” according to a brief filed by law firm فرانسیس میلمن سومیلاس.
“The U.S. Constitution allows people to sue in federal court to when they are at substantial risk of harm, even if they have not yet suffered harm,” Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at the بنیاد مرز الکترونیک به E-Commerce Times گفت. EFF برای حمایت از رامیرز یک بریف دوستی ارسال کرد.
“This principle is especially important during the ongoing technological revolution, when private corporations are collecting, storing, sharing, and using massive quantities of our highly sensitive personal information. This data processing creates extraordinary risks of harm,” he said.
Consumers should not be prevented from going to federal court until after a breach of personal data occurs, such as identity theft or denial of credit, he added. “Rather, we should be able to go to federal court when corporations process our data in a manner that creates substantial risk of these and other harms. Especially where, as here, Congress has required credit reporting agencies to ensure that their credit data are accurate and has empowered people subject to erroneous credit data to sue such agencies,” Schwartz noted.
According to the Akin Gump and the Department of Justice analyses, the Supreme Court’s ruling may be limited in its application to different stages of court proceedings. But for the tech companies, and businesses in general, the Supreme Court’s treatment of the “harm” issue will be a significant legal development affecting class action litigation.
- عمل
- ادعا شده
- تحلیل
- کاربرد
- استدلال
- دارایی
- فناوری بزرگ
- شکاف
- کسب و کار
- کسب و کار
- ماشین
- کاریابی
- ادعای
- فعالیت کلاسی
- ابر
- فناوری ابر
- جمع آوری
- کلمبیا
- تجارت
- ارتباطات
- شرکت
- شرکت
- جزء
- گیجی
- کنگره
- مصرف کننده
- مصرف کنندگان
- ادامه دادن
- شرکت ها
- دادگاه
- اعتبار
- کریستال
- جاری
- امنیت سایبری
- داده ها
- پردازش داده ها
- پایگاه داده
- وزارت دادگستری
- پروژه
- DID
- دوجانبه
- دارو
- تجارت الکترونیک
- ای بی
- کارفرمایان
- فیس بوک
- منصفانه
- فدرال
- مالی
- شرکت
- نام خانوادگی
- تمرکز
- برای مصرف کنندگان
- آزاد
- سوالات عمومی
- GIF
- گوگل
- دولت
- اینجا کلیک نمایید
- امید
- چگونه
- HTTPS
- هویت
- دزدی هویت
- تأثیر
- از جمله
- صنعت
- اطلاعات
- فن آوری اطلاعات
- گرفتار
- مسائل
- IT
- روزنامه نگار
- عدالت
- کلید
- بزرگ
- قانون
- قوانین
- یاد گرفتن
- آموخته
- قانونی
- سطح
- محدود شده
- فهرست
- دعوی قضایی
- طولانی
- عمده
- اکثریت
- مدیریت
- اعضا
- میلیون
- نام
- امنیت ملی
- شبکه
- اخبار
- ایده
- دفتر کنترل دارایی های خارجی (OFAC)
- باز کن
- نظر
- دیگر
- مردم
- اطلاعات شخصی
- خلوت
- خصوصی
- حفاظت
- انتشارات
- خرید
- دلایل
- تنظیم
- اعتماد
- گزارش
- خبرنگار
- گزارش ها
- مورد نیاز
- خطر
- حاکم
- فروش
- پرده
- تیم امنیت لاتاری
- فروش
- تنظیم
- شوکه
- سخنگوی
- استانداردهای
- بیانیه
- ایالات
- وضعیت
- ارسال
- عالی
- دیوان عالی کشور
- سیستم
- فن آوری
- صنعت فناوری
- پیشرفته
- آزمون
- سرقت
- اشخاص ثالث
- زمان
- خزانه داری
- وزارت خزانه داری
- رفتار
- ما
- دولت ایالات متحده
- متحد
- ایالات متحده
- تصویری
- صبر کنيد
- WHO
- نویسنده