Posted by Kirsten T. Rewekant.
A somewhat recent case, Ellis Vs. Cartoon Network, Inc. shows how old statutes can be in conflict with the new and always updating technology. Ellis uses the Cartoon Network app on his android device to watch popular television shows that Cartoon Network airs. This is a free service, which you could choose to upgrade to pay for exclusive content that the free app does not allow others to see. When signing up for this extended service, you would create a profile with personal information that Cartoon Network would be available to see. Ellis had decided the free version was good enough for him, and therefore, did not give Cartoon Network permission to obtain any personal information.
Cartoon Network uses a service called Bango, which allows them to assign an ID number to everyone who views their content, free service or extended. This service does not know exactly who you are with any personal information, but is essentially learning who you are by linking all the shows you watch to your ID number, and therefore, learning what you like to watch. Through the service, the company is getting an understanding of who you are. Ellis tried to argue this to the court.
The court heard arguments as to whom is considered a consumer or producer. Cartoon Network argued Ellis is not considered a consumer under the definition of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) because he does not provide any “personal identifiable information.” But Ellis argued, this ID number does show a side of his personality and gives the company his personal information. Finally, the court needed to decide whether Ellis can be considered a subscriber to Cartoon Network, which makes him a consumer under the VPPA. To be a consumer under the VPPA, you do not have to pay for a service, log in, or create a profile.
Overall, the court ruled Ellis as not a subscriber under the VPPA for not signing up for an account, providing no personal information, having no profile, not paying for the service, and he is not considered to have a committed relationship with Cartoon Network to obtain the exclusive content they offer.
Some issues with this ruling includes the fact that if you were to visit Cartoon Network on your web browser, you would not be assigned an ID number, as the app does. Another issue with this case is the very little distinction between downloading the app and being a subscriber to Cartoon Network and how these two do not show a difference in commitment. After this case, there are still questions regarding the VPPA regarding privacy, and therefore, there may need to be some revising.
Kirsten is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Emily Nichols.
In late 2013, the Texas State Conference of NAACP filed suit challenging Texas’s photo voter ID law. The specific law that was being challenged was S.B. 14, which was enacted in 2011 and requires voters to present photo ID from a limited list of approved identification in order to vote. This law disproportionately prevents groups of voters which include African American citizens from voting in person due to the law’s strictness.
I found it interesting that this law was even able to be passed but reading further into the case I found that the law was not passed until there was a case in 2013 in the Supreme Court that rendered Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act inoperable, which opened the gates for Texas to implement the SB 14 law.
After the 8 day trial, a 3 judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals universally decided that the SB 14 law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The appellate court agreed with plaintiffs that SB 14 has a racially discriminatory influence that violates the Voting Rights Act. The panel similarly ruled that the district court should hear more evidence on the intentional discrimination claim. It annulled the district court’s verdict that the ID law violated the Constitution.
The law was applied during the November 2014 election and cut many voters out of the political process of the presidential elections.
I think that this was an important case because the entire point of having a democracy is having the people be the say if what goes on with the government. With not being able to vote, and cutting out many of the voters in a very large portion of the population of Texas, it was cutting off people’s right to vote and thus really hurting the idea of democracy.
Emily is an accounting and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
The Supreme Court issued an order denying an application to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of a district court’s final judgment enjoining the enforcement of a Texas voting statute. The statute requires voters to produce identification before they vote. Business law students learn about injunctions (in this case, the court’s power to stop a party from acting) as a equitable remedy.
Congressman Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, sued Governor Perry and Texas Secretary of State John Steen in federal court, challenging the enforcement of the voter ID law, named SB 14. Veasey claimed that the law had the potential of preventing hundreds of thousands of people from voting. The strict Texas statute “requires the state’s estimated 13.6 million registered voters to show one of seven kinds of photo identification” before casting their ballot. Defendants responded SB 14 was designed to prevent voter fraud and argued voter ID laws were already approved by the Supreme Court in an Indiana case.
After a hearing, the district court agreed with Veasey that enforcement of the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” The district court determined the strict Texas statute was unconstitutional and enjoined defendants from forcing voters to produce ID. The Fifth Circuit issued a stay of the order, meaning defendants were temporarily permitted to enforce the law. The Supreme Court denied Veasey’s application to vacate the stay pending appeal. Led by Justice Ginsberg, three Justices wrote a scathing dissent (and in a rare circumstance, later corrected) expressing disagreement with the court’s decision not to vacate the stay.
Voting rights are analyzed under strict scrutiny. As of now, voters in Texas must show proper ID before they are allowed to vote in the midterm elections on November 4th.