- Journal Archives
- Volume 20
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
- 2017-2018 Symposium
- 2016-2017 Symposium
- 2015-2016 Symposium
- 2014-2015 Symposium
- 2013-2014 Symposium
- 2012-2013 Symposium
- 2011-2012 Symposium
- 2010-2011 Symposium
- 2009-2010 Symposium
- 2008-2009 Symposium
- 2007-2008 Symposium
Last Thursday, President Obama signed a bill allowing Facebook and other social media users to choose to automatically share the videos they have watched on sites like Netflix.
Facebookers could already share playlists, articles, and other web activities, but the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) banned the sharing of any video history information (in the absence of written consent by the consumer for each video or a warrant from the police.)
An outraged Congress passed the VPPA in 1988. The legislative action was in response to the publication of innocuous video rentals made by Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork during his heated nomination process. Since this was widely seen as an invasion of privacy, Congress enacted the VPPA to limit how much people can share about their video rental and viewing history.
Twenty-five years later, however, the VPPA kept Facebook from providing its “frictionless sharing” to U.S. Netflix users. With the threat of a VPPA violation looming, Netflix did not extend all of its features to its U.S. users. Netflix users outside the United States, specifically those in Canada, the U.K., and Latin America, already have the option to link their accounts with Facebook.
For over two years, Netflix and other companies have fought VPPA enforcement by calling the law dated and pointing to the silliness of attaining written consent for each video viewed. In the interim, Netflix has a Facebook “app” that U.S. users can access through the Facebook App Center. It shows screenshots of the ability to share Netflix recommendations on Facebook, but when accessed it merely redirects to Netflix’s website.
Last year, a Netflix competitor took matters into its own hands. Hulu introduced an app that allowed users to share their video-watching activity on Facebook despite the VPPA. Hulu users filed a VPPA class action but the company claimed it only disclosed personal information in its “ordinary course of . . . business.” However, a California district court clarified that the VPPA applied to video service companies like Hulu. And so, Netflix, Hulu, and the like had to rely on Congressional amendments.
The House and Senate approved H.R. 6671, the Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act, late last year without objection but the Senate version had considerable recommendations. The bill from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), approved by President Obama, now requires services like Netflix to obtain explicit consent for the sharing of video-watching history on outside sites like Facebook.
The bill’s main provisions state: 1.) consent for sharing video-watching history can be granted online; and, 2.) consent can be given for up to two years and is not necessary to be renewed for each video viewed. Since the consent must be explicit, users will be directed to permission menus. These permission-based menus must be separate from other menus on the site, such as the terms of service or privacy rules. They cannot be in “fine print,” and consumers will be allowed to withdraw consent for sharing at any time, on a case-by-case basis or altogether.
The bill comes to the President’s desk after unanimously passing through the Senate on Dec. 20. Although the bill was a bipartisan effort, some have criticized the law since a heightened e-mail search warrant provision was dropped from the legislation. Still, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) released a statement saying that he believed the law “sets the stage” for Congress to take up his email privacy bill next year.
In the meantime, Netflix has announced that it will utilize social sharing features in 2013.
Recent Blog Posts
- Guest Post: Virtual Reality as an Agent of Legal Change
- May It Please the Court…and Facebook?
- Unionization Within The Video Game Industry Is A Looming Threat
- Aerial Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment
- Cambridge Analytica & One Professor’s Lesson in Britain’s Data Protection Act
- “Fake News”, Twitter Bots, and the First Amendment
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution