I’ve blogged about firms finding growth by starting innovative gaming practices or going deep into biotech. But not all legal innovation is for the good.

The defense firm of Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye has gone and started a kiddie-porn practice.  And what better choice of imagery for attracting child porn defendants than….yes, wait for it…… a guilty looking woman-child showing some skin.
(Please share  your comments on this below.)

Here’s their copy, which again, I submit to the tender mercies of your comments:

An accusation of child sexual assault, abuse or molestation can be life-altering. Without the help of an experienced defense lawyer, you may face lengthy imprisonment and mandatory lifetime registration as a sex offender.

There are also the personal costs. Your reputation and standing in the community may never be the same. Your family relationships may be damaged permanently. With this much at stake, can you afford to hire an attorney who is anything less than extremely well-versed in both the legal and personal aspects of these cases?

Would anyone care to speculate on which “personal aspects of these cases” counsel may have been referring to?

In the court of bad advertising, can you plead insanity?
But wait, here are two more…..Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye proceeds to go totally off the ranch with these other case types.

Plaintiff Intimidation Our Specialty?

Hey, Sara-Lou, Daddy’s seeking a defense lawyer, how about these guys?

Would anyone like to send this firm a message?
Its simple to do. See my earlier post on Google sidewiki, and go type what you think of this firm’s advertising on their home page.

Their third web ad goes even further in stupid and tasteless bad advertising…

Continued

First They Came for the German Marketers…

Continuing my theme that regulation should be a much higher concern to digital marketers and their professional associations, I submit that one core digital marketing tool may already be illegal in the world’s third largest economy.

Zeit Online reported today that numerous German privacy officials are convinced that sites using Google Analytics illegally violate visitors’ privacy. (By the way, I use Google Analytics on this site, and I see nothing of a personal nature about your visit here.)

The article, which Google provides a translation of here, says that 1.8 million German sites use Google Analytics, which represents 13% of all sites with the “.de” domain. It quotes a German lawyer who says penalties could amount up to €50,000 (about $75,000) for each site.

Here’s why I believe regulation of digital marketing is close at hand:

• My state proposed a bill that would likely ban Google Analytics, much like the German officials describe above.
• Democrats in the US Senate overwhelmingly approved of regulating any political blog with over 500 subscribers (even this one) as a lobbying organization.  Isn’t the US the country that doesn’t regulate political expression?
• The FCC has signaled a willingness to “regulate the Internet in the public interest,” and it has asserted its jurisdiction over network neutrality.
• The FTC has issued guidelines for advertising networks and CAN-SPAM.

It’s time to for marketers to generate a policy discussion with our representatives, and perhaps do some lobbying of our own.

After all, the Internet is not a publicly owned system, as public airwaves are. It is my server and your PC connected using networks we privately pay for. We adhere to protocols established through voluntary private groups. If our conduct is legal, then regulation for even the noblest of reasons risks intrusiveness.

Which is More Benign: the US Government or Google?
Which built a secret spy capability to monitor domestic phone traffic? Which  proposed that bloggers register with the Federal Election Commission? Which compels your support through threats of fine and imprisonment?  And which provides services many services for free?

You Tell Me
Do you see regulation as a risk?  And is Google still pretty benign, or am I a digital dupe? Please let me know what do you think.

Seth Godin may not want comments on his blog, but Google does.  Google’s Sidewiki service allows anyone with their tool installed to post and view comments in a frame right beside web content. I’ll provide a few examples of how this service is taking root, and some options for your Sidewiki strategy, including the choice to actively jam its operation.

Is Somebody Scribbling on Your Website?
That’s the upshot of Sidewiki. If you have a website, you may have comments that you can’t see unless you turn on the Sidewiki feature on the Google toolbar or the Chrome browser. The web and blogs aren’t necessarily social or interactive, but that’s exactly what Sidewiki delivers (whether you’re ready or not).

Can’t you just hear the sound of brand managers downloading Chrome and the Google Toolbar in droves? Already SEO consultants are claiming to have ways to get better results for your site through Sidewiki, and better placement for your comments.

Traditionally, Google has been at the center of the web as a search agent that directs visitors to helpful content on the edge. Suddenly, Google also has central content displaying out on the edge next to website content. This competes with commenting on sites, and it creates a bifurcated discussion as only those with Google software can see Sidewiki comments.

So, here’s what it looks like for some brands that have to take their play in social media very seriously.

The Mormon Church May Have to Discuss Homophobia on Its Homepage

Having run SEO for a major Christian denomination, I can assure you the LDS Church’s competition isn’t from the Baptists or Hindus. Rather, it’s from having a page discussing a law suit over pedophile scoutmasters come up in the top related search results. This is a beautiful site, which, in my opinion, is intentionally constructed not to directly engage on hot-button issues right out of the gate. Sidewiki changes that.

Ready or Not, Seth Godin Has Comments Now …

Yep, Seth Godin has a famous explanation for why he doesn’t have comments on his blog. Take a look: he has comments now. For good or evil, Google’s made the web more social for those who’d prefer it that way.

Is Sidewiki Good or Evil?
Commenting can do a lot of good. Real experts can set facts straight, and feedback will attach itself to bad companies so others can benefit from that feedback.  Further, comments are all attributed to specific accounts, so this is less anonymous than many schemes.

However, it allows Google, the arbiter of search, to also decide which posts should rise to the top of discussions. Suddenly it’s critical both in traffic acquisition and now also in onsite engagement. Further, the discussion is just a string of sequential one-off statements, sort of like those fake presidential debates. It would be more useful to allow site owners to respond directly to comments.

What Sidewiki Strategy Should Brandholders Adopt?

Continued

On The Internet Nobody Knows If You’re a 14-Year-Old Girl
In Wales, a 61-year-old woman suspected that her husband had been sharing elicit emails with a 14-year-old girl, and feared he was a pedophile. She logged on from a computer elsewhere in their home, pretended to be such a girl, and found he was all too willing to email revealing photos and attempt to seduce her. She promptly notified authorities, and even protested when he didn’t receive prison time. Good for her.

CNET gave her a tip of the hat, but thanks to a bad law made in response to an even worse case, the same act in the US might lead to the wife being federally prosecuted. Last year, 44-year-old Lori Drew was convicted under Federal law for computer hacking, because she falsely claimed to be a 16-year-old boy when harassing a child who later committed suicide.

By construing the use of a false identity as “unauthorized access to a computing system,” and equating it to hacking, Federal officials criminalized a common act.  They did this to get one seemingly bad person, but along the way could have ensnared virtuous acts as well.

After all, presenting a pretended identity is nothing new. Consider how common it is in Shakespeare. Nor is it inherently criminal, let alone a Federal crime. Fortunately, Lori Drew was convicted of lesser charges. But this is still an example of how a hard case made for a bad application of the law. And how later consequences can be hard to predict.

Turns out, impersonating a teenager online can be used for good, that is where its hasn’t been criminalized. Common law holds that we are the owners of our names, and anonymity has often been upheld as a speech right. So the use of a pseudonym absent malicious  intent seems both part of our culture, and a healthy relief for today’s closely tracked, segmented and surveiled visitors.

In April, the FDA sent warning letters to 14 companies, including Eli Lilly and Co and Merck & Co Inc., about their drug marketing online, saying that ads for certain products were misleading and did not contain any risk information.

But it’s hard to include risk information when your Twitter post is limited to 140 characters. So the FDA called a hearing. More than 800 people attempted to attend the event, which had seating for only 350. Fortunately, proceedings were streamed on video, so you can watch here.

Participants were asked to consider a number of questions, including how much responsibility drug makers bear for online content about their products and how to determine when online chats about a medicine are influenced by the manufacturer.

So, what do you think?
Should drug makers get a hall pass from disclosure rules in short format media? So they would Twitter, blog, and provide search advertising mentioning the benefits of their goods, without disclosing risks? Or is advertising Lipitor different than selling jackets at Kohls, and just not right for ad venues which risk and benefit can’t be adequately presented.

Litl Computer is to netbooks as iPods were to MP3 players.

The beauty of the iPod was that it was designed to fit people’s worlds. It fit physically and it conceptually allowed  users to find and get music from the web without being transfixed by technology.

Imagine a laptop built from its roots to be an easy, maintenance-free interface to the web.

That’s what Litl does. Like the iPod, it has its own OS and unique hardware design to be an interface between your home life and the web. So what does that mean for you?

Continued

Verizon’s defense against ATT’s request for a temporary restraining order was blazing, and  a fantastic read. Its like they let their savage ad team help write the brief.

1. ATT demanded that Verizon pull five disputed ads from the air as they were “misleading”.
2. Verizon’s defense was, literally, “the truth hurts.”

Defense’s introduction nails its theme in the opening sentence:

“AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s ‘There’s A Map For That’ advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.”

It establishes the inherant lameness, of ATT’s claim:

“Remarkably, AT&T admits that the 3G coverage maps — the one thing that is common to all five ads — are accurate and that the ads’ express statement that Verizon has “5X More 3G Coverage” than AT&T is true. Nonetheless, AT&T asserts that Verizon’s ads about 3G coverage are “false and misleading” because they allegedly imply a message that confuses consumers regarding AT&T’s non-3G coverage.” (As if…)

Then Verizon spanks ATT in court, just as it does in its own advertising:

“In the final analysis,” the introduction concludes, “AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon’s side- by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T’s confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business, and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger.”

You can read the well written defense brief here.

This year, online tools are helping parents identify dangerous products, and better still, select healthy choices from the field of safe picks. In today’s complex world, everyone’s health safety is increasingly in their own informed hands.

Healthy Stuff
Bet you didn’t know that many toy cars contain materials known to cause birth defects or cancer. Or that some toys have low levels of lead. The site HealthyStuff does, and besides filling you in on which toys, cars, and pet products are dangerous, they also provide an easy way to take action and advocate for safety changes.

No More Toxic Toys
Check if that toy contains toxic chemicals by sending a text message right from the store. Moms Rising has a database of toxicology reports on more than 1,200 toys.

Government Watchdog’s Twitter
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is where parents can report dangerous products or learn of recalls. Watch their Twitter feed @OnSafety for recalls, announcements, and helpful safety tips.

The Good Guide Tells You What’s Inside Your Food
Learn what you can do to have healthy meals and be informed of what’s in your diet. In just a few minutes I learned about the lasting consequences of food-borne illness and discovered reports of water supplies containing traces of cooking spices, heroin, rocket fuel, and birth control drugs.

There are lots of legitimate reasons people don’t want their names on domain-ownership records. These range from exercising the privilege of anonymous speech, to avoiding spam, to simply preserving one’s own privacy.

Of course this practice makes tracking down responsible parties for infringement or other offenses harder, as it requires a court order to learn who owns what domain. Now the Ninth Circuit court of appeals has said that using such a service constitutes a  “material falsification” of information.” See United States v. Kilbride.

GoDaddy has been the leader in providing this service. As long as this ruling is confined to a circuit court, this becomes a source of uncertainty for this part of their business. Stay tuned for appeals.

The same ruling also ruled that obscenity in email messages should be judged by a national standard, rather than a local standard where the email is received. Details are posted in E-Commerce and Tech Law.

If you’re blogging, you’re a publisher.  Yesterday I posted about how Cyber Liability Insurance may help firms mitigate the risks of new online business activities. But what about your personal blog?

Liability for Your Personal Blog? Oh, yes.
Andrew Hamilton published a website, Forgotten Ohio, in which he retold a local ghost story about a “haunted house” in his community. Though he didn’t encourage trespassing, or portray the property owners in a false light, a local court held the website liable for $125,000 in damages. See coverage of this horrifying ruling on Overlawyered.

Are There Liability Risks in Personal Blogging?
Even if your blog is non-commericial you can still be charged with defamation, copyright or trademark infringement, libel, slander (if you publish audio), and other creative charges. Once could also be charged for invasion of privacy as part of your news-gathering. Though the First Amendment protects what you say, it’s protection isn’t as strong about how you gather information to express.

And there is always the potential of infringement claims by trademark and copyright holders. And even if you’re in the right,  litigation can be expensive to defend, and the costs skyrocket the longer the litigation continues.

Besides, the law around many digital issues is still unfolding, and many jurisdictions vary in their knowledge of these laws. You may think you’re in the right but still find a decision against you. These unexpected rulings are the bread and butter of our online law blog.

You May Already Have Liability Insurance for Personal Blogging
If you have Homeowner’s or Renter’s Insurance, you have general liability insurance that could be applicable in some of these situations.  Most policies cover damages and fees incurred in suits against the insured for “bodily injury.” While that sounds more physical, this often includes  personal injury arising out of defamation or invasion of privacy.

Obviously, you are only covered if your insurance contract contains such language.

You should note, however, that your policy may not include coverage for copyright or other intellectual property claims, which do not typically fall within the standard definition of “bodily injury” or “personal injury” covered by most policies. Homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies typically cover damages  and legal defense costs, but not punitive damages.

Extend Your Coverage With Media Insurance
Harvard’s Citizen Media Law Project provides resources to explain if you would benefit from Media Insurance.

If your online activities are part of an existing business, you may also be able to add coverage to your business insurance policy through an add-on rider. Keep in mind that the fact that you may not make money doesn’t insulate you from responsibility for what you publish online. And a few minutes thinking about how to avoid liability and protect yourself from charges may save you stress and thousands of dollars in expenses later.