Most states and the federal government have specific laws that prohibit unlicensed gambling and lotteries, which are typically defined as “risk[ing] something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome” (See NY Penal Law – PEN§225.00 et seq.).  In fact, only state governments, where permitted, are allowed to run lotteries and many states outright prohibit them.  As a general matter, a lottery has three determinative, core elements: consideration (usually the payment of money), chance and prize.  Accordingly, for example, under California law Penal Code Sec. 319 , which is typical of most state anti-lottery laws, a contest or a sweepstakes becomes an illegal lottery when all three of these elements are present.  Therefore, in order to run a legal promotion (such as a sweepstakes or contest) one of the three elements of a lottery must be absent.

Sweepstakes generally enjoy an “exemption” of sorts from the lottery and gambling laws by virtue of the fact that there is no purchase required in order to enter (leading to the “NO PURCHASE NECESSARY” language that accompanies sweepstakes rules), thus eliminating the “risking something of value” element described above.  In contrast, a contest will often retain the consideration element but instead require some demonstration of skill from the participant, thus removing the core element of chance from equation.

Against this backdrop, the first slew of promotion-type apps taking advantage Apple’s revised developer terms have been sweepstakes as opposed to contests.  Specifically, these new applications are allowing entry into games where the winner is selected purely on a randomized basis, without having to demonstrate any skill in participating.  Therefore, laws applicable to the administration of sweepstakes, as opposed to contests, are at issue.

Historically, the largest legal hurdle and source of the most debate regarding the operation of sweepstakes has been over the removal of consideration from the equation.  Merely removing the requirement of an entry fee will not always satisfy the “no consideration” requirement as consideration can come in many forms, including the purchase of a product, an SMS text, subscription fees or otherwise engaging in activities that require substantial time or effort, such as completing an online survey, etc.  And even when some amount of consideration exists, promoters have generally avoided having their sweepstakes classified as unlawful lotteries by providing a universally-available, free alternative method of entry (“AME”) (such as a mail-in postcard, etc.) that provides equal treatment to entrants who use the AME.  Thus far, the sweepstakes applications available on the App Store (whether free or for a fee), such as “Scratch Off Now” from Thought Quarry LLC, which enables marketers to include their branding, messages and products on the app, are coupled with an AME on a corresponding website, allowing entrants the opportunity to participate in the sweepstakes without downloading the particular application.

However, providing an AME may not be enough, under some state laws, to make the promotion legal if the entrants that have paid consideration do not receive something of value for the payment.  An end user may not pay just for a chance to win a prize and state anti-gambling laws may be invoked (as is the case with online poker, sports betting and other forms internet-based gambling) if an end user is required to purchase (a) an app itself or (b) entry in a sweepstakes via such app and does not receive some value in return.  That “return value” needs to only be equivalent to the value paid for the app or the entry.  To take a recent example, paying entrants in a recent sweepstakes promotion tied to the Iron Man 2 movie release received a can of Dr. Pepper.

In addition to providing something of value to entrants, a sweepstakes can avoid classification as an illegal lottery if it clearly promotes the sale of “real” products or services, distinct from the game itself.  Accordingly, it is no surprise that Apple has limited its developers to creating “promotional” sweepstakes and contests. Even Facebook, which similarly allows third parties to run contests and promotions on its platform, continued to refine and post increasingly specific guidelines throughout the past year in an attempt to ensure that these gaming-style promotions are run in accordance with applicable law. In fact, Facebook now prohibits promotional sweepstakes that condition entry upon the purchase of a product, completion of a lengthy task, or other form of consideration.

Needless to say, the risks are real for both social networking sites and device manufacturers housing applications, particularly when both virtual and credit card transactions are occurring on and through the sites and platforms, including where credit card data is maintained (e.g., purchasing raffle tickets via an iPad app where the credit card charged is on file with Apple via iTunes), as the potential exists for liability to extend beyond the app developer.  Ultimately, social networking sites and platform developers need to ensure that their marketing partners, sponsors and developers carefully structure their promotions and apps to comply with anti-gambling laws.

As always, we will keep an eye out for developments in this area of the law, particularly as the lucrative and viral nature of these promotions continue to expand exponentially across new media platforms and devices.

A testament to the significance of this concern is last week’s victory of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.  Facebook was charged with violating Canada’s privacy laws, both with respect to the disclosure of personally identifiable information of Facebook users to over one million third party Facebook application developers, as well as keeping a user’s personal information indefinitely (including after deactivation of a user’s account).  Along with the attention of other social network providers, Canada’s investigation certainly elicited global attention, as it became the first country to legally examine Facebook’s privacy policies and procedures.  This investigation has also led the Canadian privacy commission to examine the privacy policies and practices of six other social networking sites.  The Privacy Commissioner’s chief complaint was that the way in which Facebook provides information about its privacy policies to its users is often confusing or incomplete.

As a result of the investigation, Facebook announced that it will implement new privacy safeguards and modify its privacy policy accordingly.  Among other things, Facebook has agreed to compel third-party developers to disclose to Facebook users the precise types of information they plan to access and use.  Under the current policy, users who want to utilize the third-party applications via their Facebook account are required to agree to share all of their data with such third party developers. 

The new procedures are intended to ensure that users are given the opportunity to consent to use of each type of personal information (such as date of birth, hometown, etc.), but more importantly have the ability to refrain from approving the use/disclosure of certain types of information while still being able to utilize the third party applications.  Facebook will also provide users clearer explanations and information in terms of deactivating their user accounts, specifically to make it clearer to users the difference between deactivation and deleting their information permanently.  Although Facebook plans to begin updating their privacy policy within the next month or so, implementing the technical changes will be performed over the course of the next year. 

While Facebook was the primary target of the investigation, we believe that the Canadian government’s actions, and Facebook’s response, will have a substantial ripple effect, with businesses carefully reconsidering their terms of use and privacy policies to ensure compliance with both the letter and spirit of privacy laws and regulations throughout the world. 

• According to a new research study by Nielson Online, social sites like Facebook have surpassed e-mail as the number one online activity, with two-thirds of the world’s population visiting social networking or blogging sites.  What’s more, the “stickiness” of these sites is expanding, with one of every 11 minutes spent online being devoted to social networking activities.  And, in a finding to confirm the frustration and consternation of many teenagers, the fastest growing audience on Facebook is the 35-49 age group.  Which may explain such Facebook groups as “Cool Parents Who Have Facebooks”, although we at digitalhhr can proudly say we have avoided joining that one.)
• In perhaps one more sign of the ubiquity of social networking sites, Citigroup is rolling out a MySpace-branded Visa credit card.  Its marketing pitch is geared to fiscal responsibility-a bit of an ironic twist considering Citibank’s own (mis)adventures in that area.  But Citibank is also trying to preach to its intended audience, providing bonus points to be used for concerts, movie premieres and music downloads, as well as the ability to earn points for donations and charitable deeds.  Citi has also adopted a “manifesto” including such planks as “The environment, the economy, our very security …They’re the consequences of people not thinking about consequences.” 
• In the coming weeks, members of the Online Publishers Association (OPA) such as ESPN, Forbes.com and iVillage plan to roll out new, flashier, in-your-face, ad display units aimed at grabbing visitor attention better than the average banner ad.  While enabling advertisers to get more creative with their online ads, the new formats will hopefully help publishers make more money from fewer ads, since an abundance of ad inventory has been depressing revenue. 
• Continuing the social networking news, Hulu quietly added a new social networking feature that allows users to add friends, recommend videos or shows to one another and leave messages for one another, a la Facebook.  The site, which just celebrated its 1st birthday has even more reason to celebrate.  In just one year, it has become the number two site among the top online video properties, with 9.5 million unique viewers in February viewing 308 million video streams. 
• Google introduced its Google Voice integrated phone service, which was built on top of technology developed by GrandCentral, a company acquired by Google in 2007.  With its host of features, Google seems to be aiming less at replacing any one telephone service-such as VoIP or voicemail transcription or conference calling-and more at insinuating itself in as many aspects of telecommunications services as possible. 

Power.com, a Rio de Jeneiro-based company, is also getting in on the action, with a solution that offers users the ability to view all of their social networks and synchronize friends lists, photos, updates, etc., on one platform.  Essentially, when a user logs in via Power.com they can access any of their social network pages with one click, and can simultaneously update the content of all their personal pages.  As of now, Power.com already supports Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, MSN Messenger and some others, and has its sights set on LinkedIn, Gmail, AOL and some other well-known social utilities.

While all of this one-stop-shop socializing seems appealing for a lot of reasons, (and I’m not suggesting otherwise), there are some real paradigm-shifting concerns to consider.  Privacy is obviously a big one (but that is an issue I will address in its own posting so stay tuned).  The more significant and relevant issue is the shift from a more traditional, territorial approach to ownership of end user data—where websites jealously guarded their relationships and connections with their subscribers and users–to the idea of data “portability” and the sharing of end user data across sites and among business partners.  For example, Facebook has detailed information about its users (e.g., their identities, likes, friends, etc.) but up until now that information has, for the most part, been solely of use from a targeting/marketing perspective. By creating an environment where a user can log in to websites with his or her Facebook profile and invite Facebook friends to share the experience on that site, the Facebook profile information can now be leveraged for the delivery of personalized advertising on the partner site.  Facebook gains from being able to monetize its information “off-site” and the partner gains from being able to harvest the Facebook information for targeted ad sales without having to collect the information itself.  Users may benefit from not having to provide their information to multiple sites across the Web.  There is also the added benefit (as pointed out by Facebook) of providing users with a single point of contact to control privacy settings.

While this sounds good in theory, it will definitely raise eyebrows when it comes to negotiating deals, particularly with respect to ownership issues and the conditions and limitations of the use of the information.  Some say these mere technical advancements won’t yet have a significant impact on how businesses approach social media, but I think it will be very interesting to see how quickly that will change.  Is everything better when its social? That remains to be seen.

• One report says that ad spending on social networking sites will be lower than expected this year and will remain relatively flat in 2009.  Details from the WSJ are here. 
• The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has released a report entitled “Deception and Distrust:  The Federal Commmunications Commission under Chairman Kevin J. Martin.”  Some of the highlights of the criticism: lax oversight of telecommunciations companies and pushing for revisions to agency reports in a less-than-open fashion.  One caveat:  the report was prepared and released by the majority staff and is not necessarily a consensus view.  Here’s a link.
• Google has reached agreement to bring the magazine archive and current issues online as part of Google Book Search.  Titles involved in the project are a diverse bunch and include New York Magazine, Popular  Mechanics and Ebony.  The announcement was made via this post on Google’s official blog.
• The New York Times takes a look at licensing and other revenue opportunities that are being exploited in virtual worlds.  We’ll be looking at the legal impact that emerging technologies in the virtual space might have on licensing arrangements in the coming weeks.  Check back for the full post.

Advances over the last decade in the media, entertainment and technology industries have been unparalleled. The new media landscape is dynamically shifting in real time and all businesses must anticipate and react to innovations in technology in order to seize new opportunities and develop unique business models.

Hughes Hubbard and Reed’s New Media, Entertainment and Technology group recognizes the pace at which these advancements are affecting the day-to-day operations of our clients. We specialize in helping clients exploit such developments to stay ahead of the curve by understanding the way technology influences business. It is not merely the convergence of the media, entertainment and technology industries, but the impact of such convergence on the global consumer, which drives the marketplace forward. We combine the resources and experience of a traditional law firm with an understanding and passion for today’s cutting-edge technologies to assist our clients in navigating the new realities and challenges arising from this shifting landscape.

Digital Media and Internet

• Digital audio-visual content licensing, distribution and syndication initiatives on all new media platforms including wireless, broadband, satellite radio and IPTV
• Online social networking services, virtual reality communities, blogging, massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs)
• Mergers & acquisitions, strategic alliances, online sponsorships/promotional collaborations and joint ventures
• Embeddable media player development, deployment and syndication
• Electronic publishing and distribution
• Integrated marketing, contextual advertising and brand management
• Viral marketing and Internet based “word of mouth” campaigns
• Ad serving, syndication, publication, targeting and tracking
• User-generated content ingestion, distribution, syndication and liability-related issues
• Digital content screening, moderation and filtering
• Online gaming, sweepstakes, contests and promotion compliance
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act – safe harbors and anti-circumvention issues
• Adoption and content of website Terms of Use agreements

Entertainment

• Development and production matters for motion picture and television productions, including writer, producer and director arrangements, guild issues, special effects agreements, location agreements, and other production related matters and documentation
• Domestic and international motion picture distribution in all media, including output deals and ancillary exploitation
• Cable and television broadcast, syndication and other distribution
• Motion picture and television finance, including single- and multi-project finance and all forms of debt, equity and mezzanine financing
• Strategic alliances and motion picture and television co-production and co-financing arrangements
• Major record label sound recording, publishing and associated rights clearances
• Independent music recording, publishing and licensing
• Video game development, publishing ,distribution and licensing for all platforms, including console, handheld ,wireless and online games
• Professional sports league television licensing and retransmission
• Professional athlete employment contracts and talent agreements, including spokesperson, appearance and sponsorship agreements
• Literary and other underlying rights acquisition and licensing
• Rights clearance for motion pictures, television productions and video games
• Product, character and technology merchandising and licensing
• Television format licensing
• Overall and housekeeping deals with talent elements and production companies
• Motion picture and television library acquisitions and dispositions
• Network, cable system and satellite affiliation and carriage agreements
• Product placement and commercial tie-ins
• Motion picture and television marketing agreements and arrangements
• Registration and licensing of patents, trademarks and copyrights
• Litigation concerning the interpretation of recording, film and distribution contracts
• Theme park, gaming and hotel operation

Technology and Information Security

• Privacy, data and information security compliance
• Information technology, business process, call center and manufacturing outsourcing transactions
• Website development, hosting and colocation arrangements
• Electronic commerce, publishing and distribution
• Technology and data export compliance
• Record retention and disaster recovery/contingency planning compliance
• Wireless device and network applications
• Software/hardware and intellectual property procurement, development, licensing and distribution
• Micropayment, contactless payment, smart cards and other alternative electronic payment technology implementations
• Technology transfers and acquisitions
• Technology service and maintenance agreements
• Domain name disputes

New Media, Entertainment and Technology Attorneys

• Dan Schnapp
• Rita Haeusler
• Wayne Josel
• Peter M. Langenberg
• Lindsay Orosz
• Matthew Syrkin
• Other Attorneys