Attorney Stefan Coleman Explaining 5 Tips That Employees Should Know About Digital Privacy Rights

All workers should understand some of the most important details about digital privacy rights. Awareness of these details is important because employers hold an increasing number of privacy rights over workers. As a result, it is important for all workers to understand where these various issues meet. This article will review the ten most important things that workers should know about digital privacy rights in the digital age.

Tip #1 - Understand Limited Privacy Rights for Emails

Company email accounts are the property of the company rather than the employee. As a result, companies generally able to access emails and obtain information that is contained within their own system. Given the access that companies have to these details, it is critical that workers understand that they have very little privacy for any messages that are sent through company e-mail.

Tip #2 - Practice Proper Information Protection

It is a wise idea if workers perform only non-private, work related activities on any company issued devices. Employees should also avoid combining personal and work information on their electronic devices. Workers should be aware of any company rules related to monitoring or accessing information.

Tip #3 - Understand Property That Can Be Searched

Workers today have very few reasonable expectations of privacy in items. This is increasingly true in regards to laptops, mobile devices, and smart devices that are owned by employees. Generally, any items that are owned by a company including desks, files, and lockers can be searched by an employer. As a result, it is imperative that workers remain cautious about what they bring to work.

Tip #4 - Employers Can Listen to Worker Conversations

Employees should remain conscious whenever talking on the telephone at work that an employer could potentially listen in on the individual. While it is true that the Electronics Communications Privacy Act prohibits interception of any sort without a person’s consent, the act does have a business use exception that allows companies to monitor employee conversations. Employers in accordance with the Electronics Communications Privacy Act can also obtain consent to monitor all electronic communications that an employee has.

Tip # 5 - Understand Monitoring Privacy

A large number of companies have chosen to track the motor vehicles and phones of workers. If an employer decides to install video cameras for any reason, it is imperative that companies avoid hiding the cameras and properly notify the employees about this decision. There are also some places where companies should never place any type of video surveillance including in bathrooms and locker rooms.

Speak with a Knowledgeable Privacy Rights Attorney

This article has reviewed only some of the most important issues that individuals should know about privacy protection in the digital age. If you or a loved one faces any privacy rights issues in the work environment, it is also frequently a wise idea to contact an experienced privacy rights attorney like attorney Stefan Coleman. Contact the law offices of Stefan Coleman today for assistance with your case.

Lawyer Stefan Coleman Explaining How Consumer Privacy Will Benefit by Changes to the ECPA

Passed in 1986, The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was created in an era that not anticipated the internet or social media. Since its creation, however, little has changed in the terms of the ECPA or how it is implemented. The intent of the ECPA has also downplayed online privacy to emphasize the development of technology. The rights of people who use the internet particularly consumers is very important and should be emphasized. This article will discuss how the ECPA might potentially be reformed to achieve the goal of better protecting the privacy rights of consumers. It is important that all consumers who are interested in learning about their digital privacy rights understand the weaknesses and shortcomings of the ECPA.

Add Specific Sections to the Law That Address the Internet

The ECPA has received some changes over its history, but the language of the Act is still largely outdated. Changes should be made to the ECPA that specifically address how users share and communicate information over the internet as well as additional new digital sources including Amazon Echo, smart phones, and tablets. These laws should specifically address the specific privacy concerns that a user of the internet or these digital sources might have so that users can utilize the most modern technology without fear of losing their privacy.

Ambiguities in the ECPA Should Be Resolved

Some of the most important aspects of technology today like long-term data storage were simply not around or capable of being anticipated at the time of the ECPA. As a result, the ECPA does not cover some of today’s most popular technology. As a result, there have been some ambiguities created in how the ECPA is applied which are sometimes manipulated by law enforcement. These loopholes in the ECPA must be resolved so that consumers understand the limitations and extent of the privacy rights.

Create More Specific Privacy Laws

There is a confusing body of laws and court decisions regarding how privacy laws should be applied. These laws should be more consistent and easily comprehensible so that consumers have an easier idea about what their exact rights are and how to best protect them. If more specific laws were added to the ECPA, consumers would know exactly what steps to take to protect their privacy.

The ECPA Creates Privacy Barriers for Cloud Technology

A growing number of companies are starting to use cloud technology as the method for storing a company’s files and sharing this information among various employees. Because the ECPA did not anticipate the use of cloud technology, the Act does not discuss privacy rights in this situation. By having only an ambiguous and uncertain group of laws, the ECPA has let the privacy of companies and consumers at risk. This compromised privacy right is particularly serious because there is a risk that other foreign services will begin to offer similar services to domestic consumers. This change is also important to make sure that consumers have the most heightened privacy rights while using cloud services.

The ECPA Should Extend Email Rights

The ECPA dictates that a person’s privacy protections on email expire after 180 days. This limit, however, creates substantial obstacles because the role of e-mail has changed significantly since the ECPA was created. E-mail has gained a storage quality over time and many people today use email to store various records. In respect of this changed nature, the ECPA should change the length for which privacy rights are protected.

Speak with a Knowledgeable Privacy Rights Attorney

Attorney Stefan Coleman understands the many complex issues surrounding privacy rights and has helped individuals respond to these cases. If you or a loved one has questions about your privacy rights or is not certain about how the ECP or other laws apply to your privacy, you would likely benefit from speaking with privacy lawyer Stefan Coleman. The Law Offices of Stefan Coleman have successfully helped many individuals navigate the many complicated issues that arise concerning privacy rights.

Law Office of Stefan Coleman Attorney - Class Members Get $45 Each, Lawyers Get $3.1 Million in Deal to End TCPA Suit vs Nationstar

A Chicago federal judge has approved a $12.1 million class action settlement against a national mortgage company, which allegedly made improper automated phone calls to collect debts, in which each class member gets $45 and attorneys pocket $3.1 million – even as attorneys had wanted $600,000 more.

The Aug. 29 decision was rendered by Judge Edmond Chang in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois. 

In December 2014, eight plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Nationstar Mortgage, claiming the company broached the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Nationstar, which is based in Lewisville, Texas, provides mortgages and services loans from other mortgage companies.

Plaintiffs alleged Nationstar made unsolicited, prerecorded debt collection phone calls to their cellular phones, using an automated dialing system, without their consent. There were 2.3 million people who potentially received the calls. After the suit was lodged, plaintiffs sent notices of the suit, with claim forms, to those who may have received the calls; as of April, 147,476 claims were returned and entered.

In April 2016, parties reached a settlement agreement in which Nationstar would set up a $12.1 million fund, from which each member of the class action would be paid about $45. The fund would also cover administration costs, as well as $3.7 million in fees for plaintiffs’ attorneys. The $3.7 million figure represented 36 percent of the estimated amount remaining in the fund after the other payouts.

Attorney fees of 30 percent are a “baseline” standard for such settlements, but the attorneys wanted an extra 6 percent, because of the added risk they said they faced in agreeing to handle the case. However, Judge Chang refused to approve the six percent, saying the risk was already included in the 30 percent contingency fee. 

“The 30 percent baseline appropriately reflects the market rate in this case,” Chang observed.

The eight plaintiffs who brought the suit each asked for a $5,000 “incentive award,” in addition to their $45, for their efforts in getting the case off the ground. Chang found this request “reasonable,” saying such awards are necessary to induce plaintiffs to initiate class actions.

In approving the settlement, Chang said success for plaintiffs was far from assured, with continued proceedings likely to be lengthy and expensive. In this regard, Chang quoted an unnamed Nationstar defense attorney, who said, “If this case doesn’t settle, this litigation will be a war.”

Chang noted one hurdle for plaintiffs would have been the issue of consent. Nationstar could have contended participants in the class action agreed to be called by Nationstar, when they listed their cell phone numbers on loan applications or associated papers. This argument would not only have served as a viable defense, but would also have presented “significant manageability obstacles” to plaintiffs, as “individualized” inquiries would have had to be made to clarify the “scope of consent,” Chang concluded.

Complicating matters, some participants provided phone numbers on forms for other lenders – with wording different than that of Nationstar – which Nationstar serviced, adding more knots for lawyers to untie. Chang said that as a consequence, the case could have become “unwieldy” to pursue as a class action.

Another challenge to plaintiffs, in Chang’s view, would have been whether Nationstar’s phone system was an auto dialing system as defined in the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. Chang said the question figures in a pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which could narrow the definition to such a degree that Nationstar’s system could fall outside it.

Plaintiffs were represented by the following counsel: Edelson P.C., of Chicago; Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, of Miami; Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, of New York; Landskroner, Grieco & Merriman, of Cleveland; Douglas J. Campion Law Office, of San Diego; Wick, Phillips, Gould & Martin, of Fort Worth, Texas; and Law Offices of Michael P. Sousa, of San Diego.

Nationstar was defended by the firm of Reed Smith LLP, which is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Penn., with an office in Chicago.

Law Office of Stefan Coleman - Junk Fax Lawsuit Results In $3.3M Settlement Deal; $1.1M to Plaintiffs' Lawyers

A settlement in a junk fax class action lawsuit, which is pending in Chicago federal court, would give about $330 to each fax recipient and more than $1 million to three lawyers who represented the plaintiff.

The Wendell H. Stone Company, of Connellsville, Penn., filed a class action suit in July 2016 in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois, against LKQ, a Chicago-based supplier to recreational vehicle, towing and outdoor power equipment retailers. Stone alleged LKQ violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending three unsolicited faxes to Stone in 2015.

 

Law Offices of Stefan Coleman

Overall, Stone alleged LKQ violated the Act by sending 77,848 faxes to more than 6,500 recipients, as part of a marketing campaign. In particular, Stone alleged the faxes did not tell recipients, as required by law, how to "opt out" of receiving further faxes.

A motion for a final settlement was filed April 20 in which LKQ agreed to set up a $3.3 million fund, to be split among 6,525 class action members after deductions for attorney fees, an incentive award and court costs.

The settlement was reached with help from mediator Morton J. Denlow, a retired magistrate judge with the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois. Denlow works as a mediator with JAMS, a global dispute resolution company. JAMS is based in Irvine, Calif., with an office in Chicago.

Stefan Coleman

No member of the class action has objected to the settlement, in which each member would receive about $330, after deductions. Stone's attorneys said this amount "easily doubles" the figure usually awarded in TCPA class action settlements.

The incentive award, of $7,500, will be paid to Stone for its efforts in initiating the case.

The agreement gives Stone’s legal team one-third of the settlement, amounting to $1.1 million.

“Class Counsel performed meaningful work identifying the claims, investigating the facts, drafting and filing the pleadings, engaging in an early exchange of information, participating in the mediation, preparing the settlement documents and approval papers, and performing other important legal tasks on behalf of the Class,” Stone’s lawyers wrote in their motions requesting attorney fees.

"And the work isn’t done. Rather, Class Counsel remains committed to seeing this Settlement Agreement through confirmatory discovery and onto to final approval.”

There were three lawyers, and their clerks, who worked the suit for Stone.

Stone's atttorneys said they expect to put in another $10,000 worth of time finalizing the settlement. They also want $10,867 for expenses incurred in pursuing the suit.

Stone's attorneys were from McCallister Law Group, of Chicago, and the Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, of Miami, as well as from Woodrow & Peluso, of Denver.

As part of the settlement, LKQ will also conform its faxes to regulations.

The settlement will be presented for approval to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly at a hearing May 4.

LKQ was defended by the Chicago firms of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, and Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum & Nagelberg.

Law Offices of Stefan Coleman - Class Action Filed Against National Auto Protection Corp. Over Telemarketing Calls

A Michigan consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing a West Palm Beach company of using an unlawful telemarketing campaign.

Richard Frost filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against National Auto Protection Corp. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that his phone number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The suit states that the defendant contracted him in January to sell an extended warranty for his vehicle without his consent. The plaintiffs hold National Auto Protection Corp. responsible because the defendant allegedly contacted plaintiff without prior express consent and unlawfully utilized an automatic dialer and automated voice.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against defendant, certify class action, designate class representative and counsel, statutory damages, declaratory judgment, disgorge any ill-gotten funds, attorneys’ fees, costs, and further relief that the court deems reasonable. He is represented by Stefan Coleman of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman in Miami.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case number 9:17-cv-80367

Law Offices of Stefan Coleman - Class Action Filed Against Tax Group Center Inc

A San Francisco company specializing in debt relief solutions is accused of calling people without their consent.

David Van Elzen and Ronald Rodriguez filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division against Tax Group Center Inc. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they suffered damages from receiving several telemarketing calls from the defendant. The plaintiffs holds Tax Group Center Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly kept on calling the plaintiffs despite both of them being registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek actual monetary loss in the sum of $500 for each violation, disgorgement, injunction, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. They are represented by Stefan Coleman and Blake J. Dugger of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman PA in Miami.

Stefan Coleman – Lawyers Win Victory for Real Estate Brokers in Long Court Battle

In a long battle between real estate brokers who provided services to the company Broker Price Opinion, who the brokers claimed failed to pay them or delayed payment, is finally being settled. In the class action Wornicki v. BrokerPriceOpinion.com 13-cv-03258 District Court of Colorado, Judge Philip Brimmer preliminarily approved the class action on August 8, 2017 providing for monetary relief for anyone who prepared a broker price opinion from December 2007 with BrokerPriceOpinion and who has not been paid in full.

Stefan Coleman, a lawyer for the Law Officesof Stefan Coleman called this, “a big victory for real estate brokers across the country who have provided broker price opinions and who are still owed money. We had real estate agents contacting our firm for years who hadn’t been paid in a very long time and were owed several thousand dollars. This settlement provides these brokers with the opportunity to get some of their money back and ensure that if they want to continue to provide services in the future, there are means to ensure that they will be paid for their valuable service.

Coleman went on to praise the work of the Terrell Marshall Law Group who acted as lead counsel on the case. Coleman went on to say that, “Beth Terrell showed exemplary character and commitment in this case, continuing to fight for the real estate brokers who had not been paid in spite of the many obstacles and almost four years of litigation to get this case settled on good terms.

The class action settlement provides for a total of $1.56 Million over a 4-year period. In addition, BrokerPriceOpinion agrees to ensure that going forward, brokers will be paid within 90 days of submitting their BPOs. The class action settlement also provides oversight measures and serious consequences for BrokerPriceOpinion if they fail to uphold their assurances of timely paying brokers.

Class members will be notified shortly according to the notice plan set out in the class action settlement. Each class member will get the opportunity to claim the amount they are owed from the settlement fund.

Source:- http://www.prweb.com/releases/stefancolemanlawyer/lawofficesofstefancoleman/prweb14573476.htm