FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES CLASS ACTION STATUS OF VERIZON LAWSUIT

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has ruled that Verizon customers who take issue with “fraudulent” cell phone charges must arbitrate individually with the carrier instead of filing a class-action lawsuit in court, Reuters recently reported. A group of current and former Verizon Wireless customers originally filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that it was “unconscionable” for Verizon Wireless to require customers to arbitrate any unfair charges in their contracts. According to Reuters, arbitration can often be viewed as favorable for a large company because it can be more expensive for consumers to file charges in courts individually instead of as a group.

JUDGE SHOOTS DOWN GOVERNMENTS REQUEST FOR VERIZON LOCATION DATA

On Monday a federal judge from the Eastern District of New York denied the US government's application asking Verizon Wireless to hand over 113 days of customer location data. Washington has long debated whether or not the Constitution protects modern day communications that include a third party (like cell phone conversations supported by a carrier company), and non-conversational meta data (like cellular GPS location data). Some say that buying a cell phone and using a carrier's services waives one's privacy rights in that data, while others claim we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such info under the Fourth Amendment. In making his decision, Judge Nicholas Garaufis held that "the fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by 'choosing' to carry a cell phone must be rejected."

As communications tech continues to change, these questions will likely be revisited. That's why Judge Garaufis went on to say that "in light of drastic developments in technology, the Fourth Amendment doctrine must evolve to preserve cell-phone user's reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-location records."

FEDERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO RETURN SEIZED DOMAINS; CLAIMS SHUTTING DOWN SPEECH NOT A HARDSHIP

In a cursory opinion issued today that left us scratching our heads, a federal judge has ruled that the government does not have to return a domain name seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), because its seizure did not create a substantial hardship. Really?

Puerto 80, the Spanish company behind popular sports streaming sites Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org, which were both seized by U.S. ICE earlier this year -- even though a Spanish court found they did not violate copyright law -- had filed a petition to have the sites released pending a trial on the merits of the case. The petition explained that government's seizure and continued control of the site was seriously damaging Puerto 80's business and also infringed on its readers First Amendment right to access its content. EFF, with co-amici Public Knowledge and Center for Democracy and Technology, submitted an amicus brief the elaborated on the First Amendment issues.

Puerto 80's petition explained that while the company can host content elsewhere, its usual visitors might not know how to find it. Too bad, said the court. "Rojadirecta has a large internet presence and can simply distribute information about the seizure and its new domain to its customers,"