On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Data Privacy, Cybersecurity Breach and TCPA Class Action Litigation Strategies and Defenses 2017

Released on: Jan. 26, 2017
Running Time: 06:13:15

Privacy and security remain the one area that keeps many General Counsel up at night. Furthermore, privacy and security breach issues continue to appear in the news and on the agenda of state and federal regulators – which has accounted for the explosion of putative class action litigation in this area. While many lawyers are generally familiar with the issues that may arise, this program will delve deeply into data privacy, security breach and TCPA class action suits to present the latest legal trends and strategies employed by plaintiffs’ class action lawyers and defense counsel. This is an advanced program that will focus on what every litigator and in-house counsel needs to know about the type of technologies that are problematic, the type of novel claims and arguments that are currently being litigated, legal developments and trends (including circuit splits and state law variations) and the perspectives of plaintiffs’ counsel, defense counsel and the courts in handling these cases.

If you are a litigator, a privacy or security expert, or an in-house lawyer seeking to avoid litigation, this is a program you cannot miss.

Join our expert faculty for advanced guidance on the latest legal trends, procedural pitfalls and opportunities in anticipating, avoiding, and ultimately successfully defending security breach, data privacy and TCPA class action litigation. 

You will learn:

  • Learn the technologies, business practices and mistakes that lead to data privacy and security breach cases, and best practices for litigation
  • Understand how courts in different parts of the country are analyzing standing issues post-Spokeo, including how Spokeo impacts novel theories and claims
  • Hear the latest trends concerning the landmark acts: VPPA, ECPA, CFAA, TCPA, as well as state law claims and defenses (including state biometrics laws)
  • Recognize the impact that arbitration provisions have on defeating class action suits and the likelihood of the law changing in this area
  • Outline the facts and arguments that can be used to defeat class certification motions in data privacy, security breach and TCPA class action suits (and which are the best and worst venues to be sued in)
  • Analyze the typical provisions in data privacy, security breach and TCPA class action settlements and identify the ones more closely scrutinized by the courts
  • Determine how to value data privacy, security breach and TCPA cases

This program will benefit:

  • In-house counsel at companies that face security breach, data privacy and TCPA exposure
  • Litigators and transactional lawyers who defend or advise clients on data privacy, security breaches and advertising law, including TCPA issues
  • Chief Privacy Officers and others responsible for data privacy and security compliance
  • Privacy lawyers who want to understand important litigation trends and strategies
  • Lawyers who represent mobile, cloud computing, Internet, technology, advertising, and social networking companies
  • Anyone who wants to stay one step ahead of the crowd

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:13:15]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Program Overview* [00:05:30]
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Advanced Forensics Tutorial in Data Privacy and Security [01:03:38]
    Jonathan R. Mayer
  • Substantive Law and Legal Trends in Data Privacy, Security Breach and TCPA Class Action Suits [01:03:52]
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Standing After Spokeo: Effects on Privacy, Security Breach and TCPA Litigation [00:59:40]
    Jay Edelson, Hon. Laurel Beeler, Bryan H. Heckenlively
  • Strategic Issues in Privacy and Security Breach Class Action Litigation [01:00:40]
    Daniel C. Girard, Robert J. Herrington
  • In-house Panel: Best Practices for Data Privacy, Security and TCPA Class Action Litigation [00:58:20]
    Caroline L. Elkin, Ray Sardo, Brad Serwin
  • TCPA Class Action Litigation Roundtable [01:01:35]
    Ian C. Ballon, Abbas Kazerounian, Christine M. Reilly

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Communication Commission (FCC 16-39, April 1, 2016)
    Jonathan R. Mayer
  • Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler’s Proposal to Give Broadband Consumers Increased Choice over Their Personal Information
    Jonathan R. Mayer
  • Defending Data Privacy Class Action Litigation
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Security-Breach Class Action Litigation
    Ian C. Ballon
  • High Court Gets It Right with ‘Spokeo’ Decision (May 30, 2016)
    Ryan D. Andrews, William S. Consovoy, Jay Edelson
  • Key Cases on Standing After Spokeo
    Rosemarie T. Ring
  • Mahala A. Church v. Accretive Health, Inc. (2016 WL 3611543, U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir., No: 15–15708, July 6, 2016)
    Rosemarie T. Ring
  • Opinion, Ahmed Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., et al. (USDC, D.N.J., Civ. No. 2:15-0190 (WJM), October 20, 2016)
    Rosemarie T. Ring
  • Data Privacy Law: Looking Into the Future
    Daniel C. Girard
  • Data Privacy Law: Looking Into the Future (PowerPoint slides)
    Daniel C. Girard, Linh G. Vuong
  • Complying with U.S. State and Territorial Security Breach Notification Laws
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Justice is Calling (PowerPoint slides)
    Abbas Kazerounian
  • TCPA Connect (July 19, 2016)
    Christine M. Reilly
  • TCPA Connect (August 16, 2016)
    Christine M. Reilly
  • TCPA Connect (September 20, 2016)
    Christine M. Reilly

Presentation Material


  • Advanced Forensics Tutorial in Data Privacy and Security
    Jonathan R. Mayer
  • Substantive Law and Legal Trends in Data Privacy, Security Breach and TCPA Class Action Suits
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Data Privacy Law: Looking Into the Future
    Daniel C. Girard
  • Strategic Issues in Privacy and Security Breach Class Action Litigation
    Daniel C. Girard, Robert J. Herrington
  • TCPA Class Action Litigation Roundtable
    Abbas Kazerounian
  • TCPA Class Action Litigation Roundtable
    Ian C. Ballon, Abbas Kazerounian, Christine M. Reilly
Chairperson(s)
Ian C. Ballon ~ Co-Chair, Global IP & Technology Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Speaker(s)
Hon. Laurel Beeler ~ United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jay Edelson ~ Edelson PC
Caroline L. Elkin ~ Senior Director, Legal, Employment & Benefits Chief Privacy Officer, Activision Blizzard
Daniel C. Girard ~ Girard Gibbs LLP
Bryan H. Heckenlively ~ Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
Robert J. Herrington ~ Greenberg Traurig LLP
Abbas Kazerounian ~ Kazerouni Law Group, APC
Jonathan R. Mayer ~ Legislative Fellow, Office of Senator Kamala D. Harris
Christine M. Reilly ~ Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
Ray Sardo ~ Lead Counsel, Privacy, Product, and Licensing, Pandora Media, Inc.
Brad Serwin ~ Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Glassdoor, Inc.
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.