DOCSLIB.ORG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 94 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 48 1 Ann Marie Mortimer (SBN 169077) [email protected] 2 Jason J. Kim (SBN 221476) [email protected] 3 Kirk A. Hornbeck (SBN 241708) [email protected] 4 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 5 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 6 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 7 Samuel A. Danon (admitted pro hac vice ) 8 [email protected] John J. Delionado (admitted pro hac vice ) 9 jdeliona [email protected] HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 10 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500 11 Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone: (305) 810-2500 12 Facsimile: (305) 810-2460 13 Attorneys for Defendants Yahoo! Inc. and 14 Aabaco Small Business, LLC 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Hunton & Williams LLP LLP Williams Hunton & 16 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 2000 Suite Street, Hope South 550 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 90071-2627 California Los Angeles, 17 IN RE: YAHOO! CUSTOMER DATA CASE NO.: 16-MD-02752-LHK 18 SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION DEFENDANTS YAHOO! INC. AND 19 AABACO SMALL BUSINESS, LLC’S: 20 (1) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; AND 21 (2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 22 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 23 [Request for Judicial Notice and [Proposed] 24 Order filed concurrently herewith] 25 Date: August 24, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. 26 Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 94 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 48 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT , on August 24, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter 3 as this matter may be heard before the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, in Courtroom 8 of the United States 4 District Court of California, located at 280 South First Street, 4th Floor, San Jose, California 95113, 5 Defendants Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) and Aabaco Small Business, LLC (“Aabaco”) (together, 6 “Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court for an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Consolidated 7 Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) in its entirety. 8 This Motion is made on multiple grounds under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal 9 Rules of Civil Procedure: 10 First , each of Plaintiffs’ claims fails because they have not and cannot plausibly allege any 11 injury or damages, much less injury or damages that are traceable to Defendants’ alleged conduct— 12 requisite elements of Article III standing and each of the claims. 13 Second , Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under California’s unfair competition laws, as they 14 have not pled any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent conduct on the part of Defendants. Nor can they 15 obtain the remedies sought. 16 Third , Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). Hunton & Williams LLP LLP Williams Hunton & 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 2000 Suite Street, Hope South 550 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 90071-2627 California Los Angeles, 17 Plaintiffs are not “consumers” under the statute, as they did not “purchase or lease” a covered 18 “good” or “service” under the CLRA. Plaintiffs also have failed to plead fraudulent conduct on the 19 part of Yahoo, much less with the requisite degree of particularity. 20 Fourth , Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Customer Records Act (“CRA”). As an 21 initial matter, the non-California resident Plaintiffs lack statutory standing under the CRA. 22 Similarly, CRA notice was not required in connection with the alleged 2013 Breach, as the CRA did 23 not cover “online account” information at that time. Likewise, the CRA does not apply to the 24 Forged Cookie Breach, as it did not expose any covered information. Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to 25 allege notification-delay damages—rather, Plaintiffs merely purport to allege damages resulting 26 from the alleged breaches themselves. Plaintiffs’ requested statutory penalties under Section 27 1798.84(c) of the Civil Code are unavailable, as those penalties are limited to alleged violations of 28 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 94 Filed 05/22/17 Page 3 of 48 1 California’s “Shine the Light” law (which Plaintiffs do not plead). Last, Plaintiffs plead no basis for 2 injunctive relief in connection with alleged harms flowing from past breaches. 3 Fifth , Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), as 4 Defendants did not “knowingly” divulge Plaintiffs’ alleged information; Plaintiffs admit it was 5 stolen by third parties. Similarly, the alleged Forged Cookie Breach falls outside the ambit of the 6 SCA, as none of the information contained in the cookies included covered “content.” 7 Sixth , Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Online Privacy Protection Act (“OPPA”), which 8 does not provide a private right of action. Beyond that, OPPA applies only to California residents, 9 which excludes Essar, the Ridolfos, Garg, Rivlin, Granot and Neff. And the only two remaining 10 Plaintiffs fail to state a claim nonetheless because they are not “consumers”—they did not “purchase 11 or lease” anything from Yahoo. 12 Seventh , Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any of their contract theories. They have not 13 alleged a breach of any express or implied terms; nor can they use an implied covenant theory to 14 impose new obligations on Defendants. Even still, Plaintiffs cannot plead the requisite damages, as 15 any consequential damages flowing from the alleged breaches are barred under the terms of service 16 to which Plaintiffs agreed. Hunton & Williams LLP LLP Williams Hunton & 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 2000 Suite Street, Hope South 550 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 90071-2627 California Los Angeles, 17 Eighth , Plaintiff Brian Neff fails to state a claim for fraudulent inducement, as he fails to 18 plead any actionable fraud or reliance, much less with the requisite particularity. 19 Ninth , Plaintiffs’ negligence theories—negligent misrepresentation and negligence—fail 20 under the economic loss rule. 21 Tenth , Plaintiffs cannot bring claims on behalf of the Australia, Venezuela and Spain Classes, 22 as those individuals are bound by terms of service that require them to bring their claims under 23 different laws and in different fora. 24 Finally , Plaintiffs have not pled entitlement to declaratory relief. Their conclusory assertions 25 that provisions in Defendants’ respective terms of service are “unconscionable and unenforceable” 26 are just that. 27 28 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 94 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 48 1 This Motion will be based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently herewith, 3 the pleadings and papers on file, and upon such oral argument as may be made at the hearing. 4 5 Dated: May 22, 2017 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 6 By: /s/ Ann Marie Mortimer 7 Ann Marie Mortimer Attorneys for Defendants 8 Yahoo! Inc. and Aabaco Small Business, LLC 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Hunton & Williams LLP LLP Williams Hunton & 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 2000 Suite Street, Hope South 550 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 90071-2627 California Los Angeles, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 94 Filed 05/22/17 Page 5 of 48 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 3 II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..................................................................... 3 4 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3 5 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 7 6 A. Plaintiffs Fail To Meet Their Threshold Burden Under Article III. ............................ 7 7 1. Plaintiffs Fail To Allege Injury-In-Fact Sufficient To Show Standing. ........... 8 8 2. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Facts Sufficient For Traceability. .............................. 9 9 a. There Is No Causal Connection Between The Information Stolen And The Injuries Claimed...................................................... 10 10 b. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Plead Facts To Link Breaches From 11 2013 And 2014 To Injury Today, And Other Causes Exist. .............. 12 12 c. Yahoo Is Not Liable For Theft Of Publicly Available 13 Information. ..................................................................................... 13 14 B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail Under Rule 12(b)(6). ............................................................ 13 15 1. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For A UCL Violation. ................................ 14 16 a. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Do Not Establish An “Unlawful” Act. ........... 14 Hunton & Williams LLP LLP Williams Hunton & 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 2000 Suite Street, Hope South 550 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 90071-2627 California Los Angeles, 17 b. Plaintiffs Fail To Show “Unfair” Or “Fraudulent” Conduct. ............. 14 18 c. Plaintiffs Cannot Plead Reliance Necessary For Their UCL Claim. .............................................................................................. 16 19 d. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulation of Dietary Supplements Hearing
    S. HRG. 108–997 REGULATION OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 28, 2003 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 20–196 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:04 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\20196.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, CONRAD BURNS, Montana Ranking TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:04 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\20196.TXT JACKIE C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on October 28, 2003 .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Zerohack Zer0pwn Youranonnews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men
    Zerohack Zer0Pwn YourAnonNews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men YamaTough Xtreme x-Leader xenu xen0nymous www.oem.com.mx www.nytimes.com/pages/world/asia/index.html www.informador.com.mx www.futuregov.asia www.cronica.com.mx www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com Worm Wolfy Withdrawal* WillyFoReal Wikileaks IRC 88.80.16.13/9999 IRC Channel WikiLeaks WiiSpellWhy whitekidney Wells Fargo weed WallRoad w0rmware Vulnerability Vladislav Khorokhorin Visa Inc. Virus Virgin Islands "Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC" Versability Verizon Venezuela Vegas Vatican City USB US Trust US Bankcorp Uruguay Uran0n unusedcrayon United Kingdom UnicormCr3w unfittoprint unelected.org UndisclosedAnon Ukraine UGNazi ua_musti_1905 U.S. Bankcorp TYLER Turkey trosec113 Trojan Horse Trojan Trivette TriCk Tribalzer0 Transnistria transaction Traitor traffic court Tradecraft Trade Secrets "Total System Services, Inc." Topiary Top Secret Tom Stracener TibitXimer Thumb Drive Thomson Reuters TheWikiBoat thepeoplescause the_infecti0n The Unknowns The UnderTaker The Syrian electronic army The Jokerhack Thailand ThaCosmo th3j35t3r testeux1 TEST Telecomix TehWongZ Teddy Bigglesworth TeaMp0isoN TeamHav0k Team Ghost Shell Team Digi7al tdl4 taxes TARP tango down Tampa Tammy Shapiro Taiwan Tabu T0x1c t0wN T.A.R.P. Syrian Electronic Army syndiv Symantec Corporation Switzerland Swingers Club SWIFT Sweden Swan SwaggSec Swagg Security "SunGard Data Systems, Inc." Stuxnet Stringer Streamroller Stole* Sterlok SteelAnne st0rm SQLi Spyware Spying Spydevilz Spy Camera Sposed Spook Spoofing Splendide
    [Show full text]
  • First Amended Complaint
    Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 75 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 87 Christopher I. Brain [email protected] Kim D. Stephens [email protected] Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: 206.682.5600 Fax: 206.682.2992 Interim Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel Keith S. Dubanevich [email protected] Steve D. Larson [email protected] Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C. 209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Tel: 503.227.1600 Fax: 503.227.6840 Interim Liaison Plaintiffs’ Counsel [Additional counsel appear on the signature page.] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS Case No. 3:15-md-2633-SI CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT This Document Relates to All Actions DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 75 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 87 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. NATURE OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 1 II. PARTIES ............................................................................................................... 3 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................ 7 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 8 A. Premera Had A Duty And Contractual Obligation To Protect Its Members’ Sensitive Information From Unauthorized Disclosures. .......... 8 B. Premera Failed
    [Show full text]
  • Web Fraud Prevention, Identity Verification & Authentication Guide 2018 -2019
    Web Fraud Prevention, Identity Verification & Authentication Guide 2018 -2019 LATEST INSIGHTS INTO DIGITAL ONBOARDING AND FRAUD MITIGATION FOR BANKS, MERCHANTS AND PSPS Key Media Partners Endorsement Partners Web Fraud Prevention, Identity Verification & Authentication Guide 2018 -2019 LATEST INSIGHTS INTO DIGITAL ONBOARDING AND FRAUD MITIGATION FOR BANKS, MERCHANTS AND PSPS Contact us For inquiries on editorial opportunities please contact: Email: [email protected] To subscribe to our newsletters, click here For general advertising information, contact: Mihaela Mihaila Email: [email protected] RELEASE VERSION 1.0 DECEMBER 2018 COPYRIGHT © THE PAYPERS BV ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TEL: +31 20 893 4315 FAX: +31 20 658 0671 MAIL: [email protected] Editor’s letter Customer experience and the conflict between offering a fric­ However, fraud attacks are becoming more sophisticated, with tionless customer service to good clients while managing risk fraudsters having access to the latest technology and sophis ti cated and blocking the bad guys are some themes that are emerging tools. Therefore, what is really needed? A fraud management from acquirers, card schemes, regulators, service providers, solution can track the customer’s behavioural patterns (beha- merchants, as well as auditors and journalists alike. vioural profiling) and instantly detect and report any signs of fraud, triggering a step up authentication to mitigate the Identifying fraudulent behaviour without rejecting or offending potential risk (risk-based authentication). good customers is key because a blocked good customer will not return, and as the market is so competitive, they can go every- Similarly, when it comes to financial institutions (FIs), FIs where. Moreover, automation technologies based on machine are under intense competitive pressure to make the banking learning and artificial intelligence are gaining prominence in this experience easier and frictionless (while regulators in Europe conversation.
    [Show full text]
  • Having Your Cake and Eating It: an Analysis of Concession-Abuse-As-A-Service
    Having Your Cake and Eating It: An Analysis of Concession-Abuse-as-a-Service Zhibo Sun∗, Adam Oest∗, Penghui Zhang∗, Carlos Rubio-Medrano‡ Tiffany Bao∗, Ruoyu Wang∗, Ziming Zhao¶, Yan Shoshitaishvili∗, Adam Doupé∗, Gail-Joon Ahn ∗§ ∗Arizona State University, ‡Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi ¶Rochester Institute of Technology, §Samsung Research ∗{zhibo.sun, aoest, penghui.zhang, tbao, fishw, yans, doupe, gahn}@asu.edu ‡[email protected], ¶[email protected] Abstract companies in the difficult position of choosing between scam mitigation and the happiness of legitimate customers. Concession Abuse as a Service (CAaaS) is a growing scam A perception by vendors who fall victim to concession service in underground forums that defrauds online retailers abuse may be that these attacks are isolated incidents and through the systematic abuse of their return policies (via social can thus be resolved in an ad-hoc fashion. However, through engineering) and the exploitation of loopholes in company a comprehensive analysis of underground forums and a protocols. Timely detection of such scams is difficult as they concession abuse provider, we find that such attacks operate are fueled by an extensive suite of criminal services, such at scale, target merchants across multiple industry sectors, as credential theft, document forgery, and fake shipments. involve complex coordination between different underground Ultimately, the scam enables malicious actors to steal arbitrary actors, and overcome current industry best practices and goods from merchants with minimal investment. mitigations to reliably yield success for the criminals. In this paper, we perform in-depth manual and automated In this paper, we show that concession abuse is, in fact, analysis of public and private messages from four large a prevalent criminal business service to which even unso- underground forums to identify the malicious actors involved phisticated cybercriminals can subscribe and subsequently in CAaaS, carefully study the operation of the scam, and profit with minimal investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Tips, Tools and Techniques an Overview of Counterfeit Document
    Counterfeit Fraud Prevention – Tips, Tools and Techniques An Overview of Counterfeit Document Fraud and the Methods Available to Detect & Deter it. Sean Trundy, COO UVeritech, Inc. 1743 South Grand Ave., Glendora, CA 91740 www.fraudfighter.com 800.883.8822 Contents Introduction 3 Counterfeit Fraud 4 Counterfeit Currency 4 The Modern Face of Currency Counterfeiting 5 Currency Counterfeiting on the Rise 7 Types of Counterfeit Dollars 8 Counterfeit Negotiable Instruments 11 Money Orders 11 Cashier’s Checks (Official Checks) 12 Traveler Checks 13 Treasury Checks 13 Personal Checks 14 Store Coupons and Store Currency 14 Credit Cards, Gift Cards and Stored Value Cards 15 Counterfeit Fraud Losses 17 The Multiplier Effect 17 Detecting Counterfeit Instruments 18 Visible / Physical Document Inspection 18 Color Shifting Ink 18 Holographic Images 19 Thermal Ink 19 Intaglio Printing 20 Watermarks 20 Covert Feature Detection 21 InfraRed Printing 22 Magnetic Character Printing 23 Ultraviolet Inks 23 Scientific Analysis 25 Pattern Matching 25 Data Compare 26 Tools for Counterfeit Document Detection 27 Visible Review Aids 27 Magnifier/Jeweler’s Loop 27 Infra-Red Viewers 28 Magnetic Ink Detector Devices 29 UV Lights 30 Advanced Analysis Devices 31 Machine Readable Character Reading Devices 31 Data Compare Devices 32 Pattern Matching Devices 33 Hybrid Pattern Match/Data Compare Devices 33 Multi-Layered Approach to Fraud Detection 35 Conclusions 37 2 Introduction Worldwide financial losses resulting from counterfeiting have been significantly on the rise. Growth trends for criminal fraud of almost every type have shown a steady and consistent pat- tern of year-over-year increases. This is particularly true when one looks at recent behavior associated with the use of forged documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Frauds and Quackery Hearings
    HEALTH FRAUDS AND QUACKERY HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FRAUDS AND MISREPRE- SENTATIONS AFFECTING THE ELDERLY OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION Part 1.-San Francisco, Calif. JANUARY 13, 1964 Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 31-135 WASHINGTON: 1964 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington., D.C. 20402 -Price 45 cents SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING GEORGE A. SMATHERS, Florida, Chairman PAT McNAMARA, Michigan EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois CLAIR ENGLE, California BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey FRANK CARLSON, Kansas MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, Oregon WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont WAYNE MORSE, Oregon KENNETH B. KEATING, New York ALAN BIBLE, Nevada HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii FRANK CHURCH, Idaho E. L. MECHEM, New Mexico JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine EDWARD V. LONG, Missouri FRANK E. MOSS, Utah EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts RALPH W. YARBOROUGH, Texas J. WiLmamaa NORMAN, Jr., Staff Director JoHIN Guy MILLER, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON FRAUDS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS AFFECTING TEE ELDERLY HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey, Chairman MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, Oregon KENNETH B. KEATING, New York WAYNE MORSE, Oregon WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont FRANK CHURCH, Idaho HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine E. L. MECHEM, New Mexico EDWARD V. LONG, Missouri EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts RALPH W. YARBOROUGH, Texas WILLIAM E. ORIOL, Professional Staff Member NOTE.-Four hearings on health frauds and quackery were held and they are identified as follows: Part 1-San Francisco, Calif., Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Merged Cover Sheets
    ACC’s 2010 Annual Meeting Be the Solution. Tuesday, October 26 4:30pm-6:00pm 807 - You Said What?!? Recognizing When Your Marketing Has Crossed the Line Lesley Fair Senior Attorney Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission Martin Hernandez Advertising & Marketing Legal Counsel Dell Inc. Julia Huston Partner Foley Hoag LLP Jennifer Millones Senior Attorney Diageo North America, Inc. Edward Shin Senior Corporate Counsel Welch Foods Inc. This material is protected by copyright. Copyright © 2010 various authors and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Materials may not be reproduced without the consent of ACC. Reprint permission requests should be directed to ACC’s Legal Resources Department at ACC: +1 202.293.4103, x338; [email protected] ACC's 2010 Annual Meeting Be the Solution. Session 807 Faculty Biographies Lesley Fair Lesley Fair is a senior attorney with the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, where she has represented the commission in numerous investigations of false advertising. A recipient of the Paul Rand Dixon Award for Law Enforcement, the FTC's Award for Outstanding Scholarship, and the Janet D. Steiger Award, she now specializes in industry education and compliance with the FTC's Division of Consumer & Business Education. Ms. Fair is on the adjunct faculty of the Catholic University School of Law and holds the title of Distinguished Lecturer and has been named Outstanding Adjunct Professor. She recently joined the adjunct faculty of George Washington University Law School. Before coming to the FTC, she was law clerk to United States District Judge Fred Shannon of the Western District of Texas in San Antonio and served as staff counsel to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.
    [Show full text]
  • Verifying Identity in a Digital Economy, Where Risk Is on the Rise an Ex-Cybercriminal’S Take on Fake-ID Use and Fraud
    Verifying identity in a digital economy, where risk is on the rise An ex-cybercriminal’s take on fake-ID use and fraud BRETT JOHNSON, EX-FRAUDSTER A NASDAQ® company | miteksystems.com San Diego | Amsterdam | Barcelona | London | New York | Paris | St. Petersburg The United States Secret Service called him “The Original Internet Godfather.” Why? Thirty-nine felonies, a place on the United States Most Wanted List, one prison escape and the masterminding of the first cybercrime community, ShadowCrew, the precursor to today’s darknet markets. Brett Johnson laid the foundation for the way modern cybercrime groups operate to this day; identity theft, forgery, computer crime, tax return identity theft, credit card fraud, account takeover, money laundering, fake ids, phishing are the most common crimes. After serving seven and a half years in federal prison, Johnson pivoted on his path in life. Now, he’s a dedicated security consultant specializing in cybercrime and identity theft. His years as a cybercriminal gives him an intimate understanding of cybercrimes and fraud, not often accessible to the average business or financial institution. We’ve recently partnered with Johnson for his insider’s take on fraud. In this report, he defines the different types of cybercrime and how fraudulent identity documents are used to commit these crimes, what security methods are no longer affective in mitigating risk, and what the future may look like for the role of digital identity verification in fraud reduction. Here is his take: Straight from the fraudster’s mouth In addition to its actual criminal activity, ShadowCrew was also a teaching environment.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Annual Report
    Theft 2015 Internet Crime Report Internet Crime Complaint Center 1 Internet Crime Complaint Center, IC3 The mission of the FBI is to protect the American People and uphold the Constitution of the United States. The mission of the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is to provide the public with a reliable and convenient reporting mechanism to submit information to the FBI concerning suspected Internet-facilitated criminal activity, and to develop effective alliances with industry partners. Information is processed for investigative and intelligence purposes for law enforcement and public awareness. In an effort to promote public awareness, the IC3 produces this annual report to aggregate and highlight the data provided by the general public. The quality of the data is directly attributable to the information ingested via the public interface www.ic3.gov. The IC3 attempts to standardize the data by categorizing each complaint based on the information provided. The IC3 staff analyzes the data, striving to identify trends relating to Internet-facilitated crimes and what those trends may represent in the coming year. The crime types are described in Appendix I. Additional considerations relating to the crime types are provided in Appendix III. 2 2015 Internet Crime Report Table of Contents Introduction 3 History of the IC3 4 The IC3’s Role in Combating Cyber Crime 4 IC3 Database Remote Access 7 Operation Wellspring Initiative 8 Hot Topics for 2015: Business Email Compromise (BEC) 10 Hot Topics for 2015 continued: Email Account Compromise
    [Show full text]
  • Motion and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys
    Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND RHONDA L. HUTTON, O.D. et al., CASE NO. 1:16-CV-03025-JKB Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY, INC. Defendant. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES TO CLASS COUNSEL AND NAMED PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARDS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Dated: April 17, 2019 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Norman E. Siegel Norman E. Siegel (pro hac vice) Barrett J. Vahle (pro hac vice) J. Austin Moore (pro hac vice) STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City MO 64112 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Tel: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Class Counsel Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION .....................................................................................3 III. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT ..........9 A. The Settlement Class............................................................................................................9 B. The Settlement Benefits .....................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Scattered Canary the Evolution and Inner Workings of a West African Cybercriminal Startup Turned BEC Enterprise
    AGARI CYBER INTELLIGENCE DIVISION THREAT ACTOR DOSSIER Scattered Canary The Evolution and Inner Workings of a West African Cybercriminal Startup Turned BEC Enterprise © 2019 Agari Data, Inc. Executive Summary In a first, Agari has cataloged the evolution of a Nigerian cybercriminal organization from its emergence as a one-man shop into a powerful business email compromise (BEC) enterprise employing dozens of threat actors. BEC has continued to grow, taking the number one spot for greatest financial losses from Internet crime. In a recent report, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) reported that more than 20,000 businesses lost nearly $1.3 billion to BEC attacks in 2018. Globally, BEC attacks have cost more than $13 billion in losses over the past five years. But with the West African gang we’ve named Scattered Canary, we have a deeper look at how business email compromise is connected to the rest of the cybercrime. With over ten years of visibility into Scattered Canary’s operations, we have deep insight into how the group grew from a single cybercriminal working Craigslist scams into an entire organization that consists of dozens of criminals, each with specific tasks. When the first member of Scattered Canary, who, for the purposes of this report, we call Alpha, began his operations, he was a lone wolf—working mostly Craigslist scams as he learned the tricks of the trade from a mentor. However, within a few years, he had honed his craft enough to expand into romance scams, where he met his first “employee,” Beta. Once they had secured enough mules via their romance scams to launder their stolen money, they shifted from targeting individuals to targeting enterprises, and the group’s BEC operation was born.
    [Show full text]