eCommerce Legal Environment 45-848 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Lecture 1: Legal Issues in eCommerce 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Course Administration • This is a Tepper course – not an SCS course – not a law school course • Based on U.S. law, some international • 12 lectures (Format: Legal introduction + eCommerce issues) • Follows the textbook closely • Grading – Two homeworks (60%) – Final exam (30%) – Class participation (10%) 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Course Outline • • • • • • • • • • • Legal systems & Jurisdiction Electronic Speech Privacy Copyrights Patents Trademarks, domain names Advertising Electronic contracts ePayments Tax & Antitrust Crime 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMERCIAL LAW COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Example: European Union Distance Selling Directive (U.K. Version) • Selling goods or service to consumers via Internet • Vendor must – give clear information about the goods or services offered – send consumer a confirmation – consumer has 7 working days to cancel for any reason (exceptions for certain items, such as time-value services) • Suppose – The vendor is in the U.S. (e.g. Office Depot) – Consumer is in the U.K. What’s a consumer? • Can the consumer cancel? • Suppose he does. Can the vendor enforce the sale? Where? 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS The Legal Process • Function of law: prevent and resolve disputes – – – – – Provide predictability in human affairs Express the will of the legislature Promote “fairness,” “justice,” “equality” Prevent “self-help,” violence Promote confidence in the judicial process • The structure and functioning of courts is VERY COMPLICATED • Legal reasoning is NOT OBVIOUS • Many smart people don’t understand it • Many of them are lawyers and judges 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Major World Legal Systems • Common Law (Anglo-American) – Rights-based, concern for individuals – Courts follow the reasoning of other courts (precedent) – Courts interpret (and effectively modify) the law – US, UK, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, former British colonies • Civil Law – Duty-based, concern for the will of the legislature – Judge applies elaborate written codes to factual situations, little judicial discretion – Europe, Japan – Korea: civil law + Japanese + American 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Major World Legal Systems • Socialist Law – Concern for acts as they affect the state – Russia, PRC – Teaching function • Islamic Law – Church = state • “Islam” means “submission to Allah’s will” • Judges answerable to God – Creative resolution of disputes (= unpredictability) – Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan – “Modern” Middle East countries mix Islamic + Civil, e.g. Egypt – Pakistan: common law + Islamic 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS U.S. Balance of Powers U.S. Constitution + Treaties EXECUTIVE: ENFORCES LAWS LEGISLATURE: MAKES LAWS JUDICIARY: INTERPRETS LAWS 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS U.S. COURT SYSTEM ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEALS U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEALS AGENCY APPEALS FEDERAL COURTS CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS (12) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT SPECIAL (e.g. PATENT OFFICE) APPEALS STATE SUPREME COURTS APPEAL BY PETITION “SPECIAL” COURTS OF APPEALS CONSTITUTIONAL APPEALS ONLY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION STATE COURTS APPEAL BY PETITION COURT OF APPEALS (SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES) COURT OF APPEALS APPEAL AS OF RIGHT SOME FEDERAL AGENCY APPEALS REMOVAL U.S. DISTRICT COURTS (91) TRIAL COURTS (CIVIL) TRIAL COURTS (CRIMINAL) CASES 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS The 11 U.S. Judicial Circuits 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Precedent • Courts rely on “precedent” (decide same question the same way each time) – Anglo-American concept; promotes predictability • Courts must follow decisions of higher courts in their appellate chain • Court almost always follow their own prior decisions • Courts usually follow decisions of courts at the same level on the same facts and law • Courts sometimes follow the reasoning of courts in other countries having the same legal tradition • Courts consider the reasoning used by lower courts • For a decision to have any value as precedent, there must be a written opinion 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Enforcement • Courts issue orders and judgments • Orders (commands that must be obeyed) – Injunctions (enforced by contempt power or marshal) – Seizure (enforced by sheriff or (federal) marshal) • Judgments (declaration of rights) – – – – A owes B money C, not D, is the rightful owner of piece of property P D’s lease has expired and D must vacate the land Enforced by the sheriff • A doesn’t pay: sheriff takes his assets • D doesn’t leave: sheriff puts D in jail 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Volume 121 Federal Supplement, Second Series (District Courts) Page 156 Who brought the case Court Abstract (Summary) Who opposes the case Case # Date of Decision Result 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS First Amendment • “Congress shall make no law – respecting an establishment of religion, – or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; – or abridging the freedom of speech, – or of the press; – or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, – and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (1791) 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Regulation • Administrative agencies of the government have “rulemaking” (regulatory) power • Examples: – – – – – SEC regulates securities offerings and markets Dept. of Agriculture inspects meat FAA issues airline safety regulations Comptroller of the Currency regulates certain banks Patent & Trademark Office issues patents • Where do these powers fit into the legislative scheme? • Rules have the force of law (unless they are inconsistent with statute) 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Example: Federal Trade Commission • [Primary U.S. eCommerce enforcement agency] • Established by Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41ff (1914). – “Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.” 15 U.S.C. §45(a)(1) – “The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, [exceptions] from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 15 U.S.C. §45(a)(2) 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS What’s Commerce”? • For purposes of the Federal Trade Commission: – ''Commerce'' means commerce among [the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation]. 15 U.S.C. §44 • The definition of “commerce” is different for different purposes – “The term ‘commerce’ means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among [. . .] 29 U.S.C. §152 (National Labor Relations Act) 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Example: Federal Trade Commission • Enforces 37 different acts of Congress relating to antitrust and unfair trade practices • Powers: – – – – Rulemaking Investigation (“investigative demand” equiv. to subpoena) Inspection Enforcement • Issue cease-and-desist orders – Refer criminal cases to the Attorney General 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Federal Rulemaking • In general, government agencies may prescribe rules and regulations “not inconsistent with law” in furtherance of their mission • Example: setting time limits, fees, fines, procedures – Must publish “notice of proposed rulemaking” in the Federal Register – Provide a period of public comment – Possibly hold hearings – Notify Congress – “Interested persons” may petition for “issuance, amendment or repeal” of a rule – The rule becomes a “regulation having the effect of law” without further approval 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Appeals From Agency Decisions • • • • Agencies are bound by their own rules Must appeal within agency before going to court Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §500ff: Court shall “hold unlawful and set aside” actions that are: arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction or authority; without observance of procedure required by law; unsupported by substantial evidence; or unwarranted by the facts 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Example: Federal Trade Commission • Standard for issuing cease-and-desist orders – “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition” • Review – Administrative Procedure Act: District Court for D.C. – Cease-and-desist orders: U.S. Courts of Appeals 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Subject-Matter Jurisdiction • Subject matter jurisdiction – Does the court have the power to decide this kind of case? – Examples: • patent cases are federal only • contract cases between citizens of one state are state only • Iowa can’t try Pennsylvania crimes • a state can’t sue another state in any state court – Who decides? The court decides on its own jurisdiction. – This seems circular, but how else to do it? • Can’t have one court deciding jurisdiction for every case • Jurisdiction can be appealed 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Venue • Which court (of all the courts having jurisdiction) should hear a case? – Rules & statutes specify which courts should hear cases • Forum non conveniens (“inconvenient place”) – A different court is better positioned to hear a case • Forbearance, abstention – Court refuses to hear a case • Writ of prohibition – one court orders another not to hear a case – court forbids a person to file a case elsewhere 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Statutory Interpretation • Technology can outpace the language of statutes • Courts must determine the meaning of statutes in new fact situations • Principles of statutory interpretation: – If the statute is unambiguous, it must be applied literally – If it is ambiguous, determine legislative intent • Look at transcripts of hearings! – Every word matters – Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa. C.S. §1921 – Particular governs over the general – Inconsistency: later clause (by date or position) wins! 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Ejusdem Generis (“of the same kind”) • People v. Bugaiski, 224 Mich. App. 241 (1997). Bugaiski shot a dog he claimed was attacking his own dog. Criminal prosecution under the dog law of 1919. Defenses: – “Any person . . . may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, worrying, or wounding any livestock or poultry or attacking persons, and there shall be no liability on such person, in damages or otherwise, for such killing.” – “Livestock” means horses, stallions, colts, geldings, mares, sheep, rams, lambs, bulls, bullocks, steers, cows, calves, mules, jacks, jennets, burros, goats, kids and swine, and fur-bearing animals being raised in captivity. • Bugaiski claimed his own dog was livestock since it was a “furbearing animal raised in captivity.” • No. Under ejusdem generis only animals “of the same kind” as those listed are included. Prosecution can proceed. 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) • Times paid freelance writers for stories, then later sold copies of the articles as part of an online database for a fee. • The writers sued, claiming copyright infringement. • “In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of [1] that particular collective work, [2] any revision of that collective work, and [3] any later collective work in the same series.” 17 U.S.C. 201(c) . • The Times claimed that the Internet copy was a “revision” under the statute. • District court agreed. Reversed on appeal. Supreme Court affirmed June 25, 2001 • Ejusdem generis says no. Clause 2 must be interpreted in the context of clauses 1 and 3, which set the upper and lower limits of the right. Use must be of the same kind, not unrestricted use. 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Major Ideas • World legal systems are not in harmony – Many different implementations of eCommerce law • Predictability is crucial – (Fairness is secondary) • The Anglo-American system promotes predictability • Agency regulations have the force of law • The Federal Trade Commission is the primary U.S. eCommerce enforcement agency • Old statutes need to be interpreted to determine their meaning when applied to new technology 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Q&A 45-848 ECOMMERCE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT SPRING 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS