California Ups the Ante On Privacy Policy Disclosures

For the past decade, California law has set the template for commercial website privacy policies.  With the passage of a new law, set to take effect January 1, 2014, the state has updated the disclosures required of any commercial website operator who collects personally identifiable information from California residents.

California’s Online Privacy Protection Act.   In 2003, California became the only state to require all websites that collect personal information (“PII”) from visitors – in this case, California residents – to post a privacy policy.   Until then, there was no generally applicable privacy policy requirement under either state or federal law, and, to this day, neither the other states nor the federal government have imposed such a requirement.  Federal privacy policy requirements have been limited to specific kinds of information (such as under Children’s Privacy Protection Act) or industries (under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).  Under the 2003 law, Internet sites need to identify the “categories” of personally identifiable information collected about “individual consumers”; describe the “categories” of third parties with whom the information may be shared; disclose (if there is one) any process for individuals to review or request changes to their personal information; explain how notice is given to consumers of changes in the privacy policy; and post the policy’s effective date. The definition of PII is more expansive than encountered in data breach statutes, and includes email addresses, partial addresses (including street names and towns), and first and last names.  The privacy policy also must be “conspicuously” posted, as defined by the statute.

Now, however, the law has been significantly expanded.

Illinois Supreme Court Rules Illinois “Click Through” Nexus Statute Is Void And Preempted By Federal Law

The Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision today in Performance Marketing Association v. Hamer, ruling that the Illinois “affiliate nexus” (also known as “click-through nexus”) law is “void and unenforceable” because it is preempted by federal law. Brann & Isaacson partners George Isaacson and Matthew Schaefer represented the PMA in this case, and Isaacson argued the case before the Illinois Supreme Court on May 22, 2013. The case was on appeal from the Circuit Court, which had had held that the affiliate nexus law was an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause, and was also preempted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”), because it impermissibly discriminated against electronic commerce. In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Illinois Supreme Court based its holding on a violation of the ITFA, and did not reach the Constitutional argument.

The Illinois law had purported to impose a use tax collection obligation on any out-of-state retailer or serviceman who had a contract with a person located in Illinois that paid a commission based on sales generated from referral links placed on that person’s website, provided the retailer realized a minimum in $10,000 in sales to customers through such links. Under the Internet Tax Freedom Act, states are prohibited from imposing “discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.” A discriminatory tax is defined as a tax that “imposes an obligation to collect or pay tax on a different person or entity than in the case of transactions involving similar property, goods, services, or information accomplished through other means.” 47 U.S.C. §151 note.

The ruling is a significant victory for online retailers, and for the Illinois individuals who generate income through affiliate links.

Litigation News: Colorado and Cook County Update

We have written frequently about the DMA case challenging Colorado’s notice and reporting law. The law, which requires remote sellers to inform consumers of their obligation to self-report sales and use tax and which also requires sellers to hand over Colorado customers’ names to the state’s Department of Revenue, was declared unconstitutional in 2012 by the United States District Court in Denver. See DMA v. Brohl, 2012 WL 1079175 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2012). The Court issued an injunction barring enforcement of the law. But, in August, the Tenth Circuit found that the District Court did not have jurisdiction over the case, and issued a decision calling for the case to be remanded to the District Court with instructions to dissolve the injunction. The DMA subsequently filed a petition for rehearing en banc by the Tenth Circuit, thereby staying implementation of the decision. But, on October 1, that petition was denied. As a result, the Court of Appeals’ mandate was issued on October 9. The District Court has not yet implemented the Tenth Circuit’s order, however, so for the time being the injunction remains in place--at least until the District Court acts. In response to the ruling, the DMA intends to refile its challenge to the law in state court in Colorado and seek a new injunction from the state court to prevent enforcement of a law that the federal District Court has found to be unconstitutional on its face. Brann & Isaacson’s George Isaacson and Matthew Schaefer represent the DMA in the case.

Meanwhile, we wrote in July about Judge Lopez Cepero of the Cook County Circuit Court issuing a preliminary injunction which barred Cook County from enforcing its recently enacted use tax. On October 4, the Appellate Court stayed the preliminary injunction, but on October 8, Judge Lopez Cepero granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The judge’s ruling will be issued in written form today and effectively is a permanent injunction barring Cook County from enforcing the use tax. It remains uncertain, however, whether the County will appeal this decision.

We will continue to update our readers on these and other cases throughout the country.

Beware of Taxation of Advertising Inserts

During the last legislative session in Maine, the legislature approved, and Governor Lepage signed, a bill to eliminate the exemption from the sales tax for publications. L.D. 1509, 126^th Legs., Part P, (Me. 2013). This law went into effect yesterday. The law now requires the taxation of magazines and newspapers. The sleeping dog, however, is the taxation of advertising flyers and other free publications.

Taxation of free advertising materials has become a “hot button” issue in Maine. In an Informational Notice dated September 27, 2013, Maine Revenue Services stated that the costs of printing advertising flyers, including those inserted in newspapers, are now subject to the sales tax if those materials are distributed in Maine. In other words, the publisher will be required to pay a use tax, either to its printer or directly to the state, on the printing charges for advertising flyers.

Amicus Briefs Filed in Amazon.com and Overstock.com Supreme Court Case

On September 23, 2013, several organizations and companies filed briefs as amici curiae in support of the petitions for a writ of certiorari filed by Overstock.Com, Inc., Amazon.com., Inc., and Amazon Services, LLC, requesting review by the United States Supreme Court of the New York Court of Appeals decision in Overstock.com, Inc. v. New York Department of Taxation and Finance, 20 N.Y.3d 586, 987 N.E.2d 621 (2013). Among the briefs filed was the Brief of Newegg, Inc. and the Direct Marketing Association, Inc. (the "DMA") as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners. In their brief, Newegg and the DMA argue that the New York “click through affiliate nexus” statute, N.Y. Tax Law sec. 1101(b)(8)(vi), through an improper legislative presumption, narrows the zone of protected interstate advertising activity for out-of-state retailers under the Commerce Clause by shifting onto the retailers the burden of disproving “substantial nexus” with the state, in violation of the due process rights of retailers. Newegg and the DMA argue that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits states from using presumptions to interfere with matters that are removed from their authority by the Constitution, such as the regulation of interstate commerce. Brann & Isaacson partners Martin I. Eisenstein, George S. Isaacson, and Matthew P. Schaefer prepared the brief of amici on behalf of Newegg and the DMA.

Among the other organizations filing briefs were the Tax Foundation and the National Taxpayers Union, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public Accountants, and Scrapbook.com, Assisted Living Store, Inc., et al.

Traps For the Unwary Under the Consumer Product Safety Act: Children's Products

Nestled in the morass known as the Consumer Product Safety Act (as amended by the dubiously titled Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and further amended in 2011) are provisions that can wreak havoc for businesses that manage, understandably, to overlook them.  What was once a rather straightforward reporting and recall system involving a relatively small number of federal safety standards has evolved into a complex beast of certifications, third-party testing, and training programs. While it is beyond the scope of this post to identify and discuss all of the requirements of these laws, there are some provisions that our readers should know about. This article addresses one of the thorniest of all: children’s products.

A host of new requirements apply to children’s products, and the determination of what is – and what is not – a children’s product is now no easy matter.  Generally speaking, a children’s product is one designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger, but the CPSC’s own complex “interpretive guidance” on the question betrays the superficial simplicity of this inquiry.  There are almost no clear rules, and, on matters that could lend clarity to the situation, like a reliable product labeling/marking regime that would put the onus on parents and other responsible adults to keep certain products away from children, the CPSC manages to make things even murkier.

Amazon.com and Overstock.com Petition U.S. Supreme Court over New York Affiliate Nexus Law

We’ve written frequently about developments in Amazon.com and Overstock.com’s challenges to the New York State affiliate nexus law (a law which has inspired similar laws in many other states). Last spring, the New York Court of Appeals, the State’s highest court, upheld the law, stating that, in regards to the parties’ Commerce Clause claims, the “statute plainly satisfies the substantial nexus requirement. Active, in-state solicitation that produces a significant amount of revenue qualifies as ‘demonstrably more than a ‘slightest presence’’” under the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s 1995 ruling in the Orvis case. The Court continued by saying that “The bottom line is that if a vendor is paying New York residents to actively solicit business in this State, there is no reason why that vendor should not shoulder the appropriate tax burden.” The Court rejected the parties’ due process claims, as well.

Late last month, both Amazon.com and Overstock.com took their challenge to the United States Supreme Court, each filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the New York affiliate nexus law and of the New York Court of Appeals Decision (see status of the petitions here and here). New York has until October 23 to file a response in each case. However, as the Supreme Court’s review is discretionary, it is unclear whether the matter will be actually be heard by or decided by the Supreme Court. If not, the New York decision will stand, and other states’ versions of the affiliate nexus law will not be impacted. Meanwhile, the Marketplace Fairness Act, which could, in theory, make challenges such as these moot, remains in committee in the House of Representatives.

We will continue to track developments and keep our readers posted.