Internet Law

Mandelbaum Barrett PC’s attorneys represent clients in Federal Trade Commission and other governmental actions involving a variety of claims, including deceptive online advertising and the breach of privacy laws. We also advise clients on the implementation of thorough preventative measures to avoid regulatory investigations.

In addition to defending clients in government investigations at both the state and federal level, the firm represents companies engaged in Internet marketing, including affiliate marketers and networks, ad tech providers, and others in both litigation and transactional work.

Complying with the complex web of state and federal privacy and data security laws is more important than ever, considering the increasing risk of government enforcement and consumer class actions. We help clients navigate this challenging legal landscape of privacy law acronyms (CCPA, CPRA, GDPR, GLBA, HIPAA, etc.), with a sharp eye on our clients’ business needs. We also defend clients in class action lawsuits resulting from alleged privacy law violations and data breaches.

The firm’s Internet Law Practice Group crafts terms and conditions of use, privacy policies and other key website agreements. We also conduct general Internet law compliance reviews of our clients’ websites and mobile applications.

• Roca Labs, Inc. v. Consumer Op. Corp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2015) Represented interactive computer service provider against nutraceutical weight loss manufacturer’s claims of, among other things, tortuous interference because defendants knowingly maintained negative posts on their website in violation of a “gag clause” appearing in plaintiff’s sales contracts with its customers. In response, the Court issued a resounding dismissal of each of plaintiff’s twelve claims, finding that all of them were barred under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“CDA”).

• Ascentive, LLC et al. v. Opinion` Corp. et al., 842 F. Supp. 2d 450 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction to disable client’s webpages containing negative reviews of their products. The Court denied the motion on grounds that (i) there was no likelihood of confusion between plaintiffs and defendants’ marks; (ii) defendants were entitled to immunity under the CDA; and (iii) manufacturer and developer failed to establish that defendants engaged in federal racketeering acts.