Haynes and Boone Blogs - Latest Comments

Re: Embedded Liability? Site Owners May Not be Liable for User Links to Infringing Content

scoliosis exercises — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:42:24 -0000

Very interesting post, this means that social network should keep a close eye on what they host and a bit less closer eye on what people simply link, is my understanding correct?

Re: Buyer Beware: Social Media Due Diligence in M&A

Michael L. Atkinson — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:21:39 -0000

Good post! We specialize in powering social web due diligence products for foodservice, hospitality and retail. Austin Restaurant Partners is taking the lead on this leveraging 70+ decades of restaurant, investment banking and commercial lending experience to provide detailed social media due diligence reports. The voice of the customer is all powerful, now, particularly in an economy powered by conversation.

Re: At Facebook, There Are Rules to Sharing

Guest — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:45:25 -0000

It makes sense to me that Facebook would not allow 3rd party extraction given that said process may open up a host of privacy violations if the 3rd party doesn't handle the data properly. Also, doesn't Facebook allow you to download all of your data using their own tool? So it's not a matter of holding on to this information, but rather assuring there's a safe mechanism for doing so.

Re: Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over a Foreign Parent Regarding Controlled Group Liability for U.S. Subsidiary’s Pension Plan

wraparound — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:15:18 -0000

Cool! Binding precedent for the Chinese Investment Corporation being liable for the U.S. social security scheme!

Re: Seventh Circuit Holds 10% Tax Applies to IRA Withdrawal Following Rollover

pensiongeek — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:24:01 -0000

It looks like you have a typo in the second sentence. The subsequent distribution was from the IRA, not the 401(k).

Re: IRS Uses Section 409A Analysis to Determine if “Retirement” Occurs for Pension Plan Purposes

Robert Mitchell — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:16:14 -0000

If only this applied to govt workers.... we could solve a big portion of public plan underfunding

Re: Yahoo! v. Facebook: Clicking Through the Blogosphere Bias

Anton Koekemoer — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:47:34 -0000

Almost unbelievable - Thanks for sharing all the info and viable links , found it extremely interesting seeing how the battle of the search engines rages on. But you know what they say ; "Business is Business".

Great psot.

Re: Recent NLRB Social Media Report Raises New Questions

Alex Stevens — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:35:08 -0000

Great question Chris. You're correct that there is some confusion regarding potential conflicts between the FTC and the NLRB regarding social media. When addressing this issue, it's important to remember that the recent NLRB report is not binding on the Board, but rather reflects the Board's General Counsel's reasoning as his office evaluates whether or not to issue a complaint as an initial step in prosecuting an alleged violation of the NLRA. Having said that, the report does indicate that it's possible to craft a policy that satisfies the FTC's endorsement guides without running afoul of the NLRB.
As noted above, some employers have cast a broad net in an attempt to comply with the FTC's endorsement guides, which runs the risk of prohibiting activity that is protected by the NLRA. For example, the policy discussed above that required employees to disclose their employment status when discussing their employer would ensure compliance with the FTC's endorsement guides, but (according to the NLRB's General Counsel), it would violate the NLRA.
However, as demonstrated in the second case summarized above, it is possible to comply with the FTC's requirements without violating the NLRA. In that case, the employer's policy had a separate "Promotional Content" section, where the disclosure requirement appeared. Because this context made it clear that this requirement applied only to statements that would be construed to promote the employer or advertise on its behalf, the policy was not unlawfully broad, and no related complaint was issued.
The disparate results in these two cases are a good example of how ostensibly minor distinctions or differences of degree in a social media policy can have unintended consequences, especially as the NLRB continues to refine its stance. For this reason, a social media policy should be drafted with an eye toward the policy's broader role in the workplace, as well as its interaction with the employer's other policies.
Thanks for reading!

Re: Recent NLRB Social Media Report Raises New Questions

Chris Boudreaux — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:37:50 -0000

Hi, Alex,

I'd like to ask you a question about this, because I am hearing some confusion in the market. Some folks believe that the FTC and the NLRB are giving conflicting guidance, but I don't see the conflict.

Specifically, the NLRB says that employers can not require employees to "disclose their employment status when discussing their employer online, and to state that they are not speaking on their employer’s behalf"; however "discussing their employer" is more broad than endorsements.

And the NLRB is not trying to stop brands from complying with FTC requirements for brands to train and audit for disclosures among employees and affiliate marketers who endorse the brand or its products.

Is that your understanding?

Thank you for this summary.

Chris

Re: Early Retiree Reinsurance Program Ending

uk immigration lawyer — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:33:15 -0000

One of the conditions for participation in this program is that MIT is required to provide all enrolled medical plan participants with a government-provided Notice About the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.