[{"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","id":3241460,"description":"By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al.   Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law   will be representing CALL/ACBD and Library Futures. This case addresses the question of how the concepts of “communication to the public by telecommunication” and “making available on demand” as used in the Copyright Act should be understood. The outcome of this case has the potential to significantly impact various library activities, including controlled digital lending and possibly even the simple use of hyperlinks, particularly in light of the limited scope of current library and education exceptions in the Copyright Act . CALL/ACBD's submitted that the court refrain from broadly construing the terms “making available” and “Communication to the Public by Telecommunication” and that s. 2.4(1.1) of the act (\"Communication to the public by telecommunication\")   does not need to be understood as creating a new right.   You can find CALL/ACBD’s intervener's factum at https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM050_Intervener_Canadian-Association-Law-Libraries-et-al.pdf . The other factums in this case are available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39418 .  CALL/ACBD has acted as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada on two other occasions. In Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. , which looked at Crown copyright, CALL/ACBD submitted   that “s. 12 Crown copyright does not extend to primary sources of law”. In York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency  (\"Access Copyright\"), CALL/ACBD submitted   that the SCC “should resist the temptation to modify or clarify the existing fair dealing test” stating that the existing test “is a flexible multifactorial test that allows libraries (and other institutions) to tailor access and appropriate copying policies that consider all relevant circumstances.” CALL/ACBD also made submissions to the 2018 review of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42: one general submission   and <a","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:47 +0100","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12242053","titre":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries Intervention in Upcoming Supreme Court of Canada Copyright Case"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/04/ftcs-google-settlement-whats-buzz","titre":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz?","id":3200009,"description":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? wfg-adm109 April 1, 2011 | 4:28PM The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? By Lesley Fair “Sweet!  Check out Buzz.” “Nah, go to my inbox.” That was the intriguing choice facing Gmail users last year when Google launched Google Buzz, its social network. But according to a settlement announced this week by the FTC, the company violated the privacy promises it made to Gmail users and used deceptive tactics in the Buzz rollout. The story starts with Google’s privacy policy. From October 2004 until October 2010, Gmail users were told, \"Gmail stores, processes and maintains your messages, contact lists and other data related to your account in order to provide service to you.\"  On the subject of the choices users had about the use of their personal information in all of Google’s products, including Gmail, the privacy policy said, \"When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.\"  According to the FTC, statements like that conveyed that Google would use information from people signing up for Gmail only for the purpose of providing them with email service and that Google would ask for their consent before using their info for any other purpose. So far, so good. But then came the roll-out of Google Buzz. The service allows users to share updates, comments, pictures, videos, and the like through “buzzes” made either publicly or privately to individuals or groups of users. When Buzz was launched, Gmail users were taken to a welcome screen that announced the new service and presented the “Sweet!” or “Nah” choice. If users clicked “Nah,” the FTC complaint alleges that their info was nonetheless shared in a number of ways. First, the user could still be “followed” by Gmail users who enrolled in Buzz. Second, if the Gmail user had previously created a Google profile, he or she could appear on the public Google profiles of Buzz enrollees who were following them. Third, a link to Buzz would show up on the list of links on the user’s Gmail page. If the user clicked on that link, he or she would be taken to the Buzz welcome screen and would be automatically enrolled in Buzz without any disclosure of that fact. In other words, users would be enrolled in certain features of Buzz even if they didn’t sign up. So much for “Nah.” The FTC’s complaint alleges that despite what it said in its privacy policy, Google didn’t use information from people signing up for Gmail just for the purpose of providing email service. Rather, the company used it to populate Buzz. Thus, said the FTC, the representations in Google’s privacy policy were false or misleading. Furthermore, the agency alleged that despite the promise in its privacy policy that Google would ask for consumers’ consent before using their information for another purpose, Google went ahead and used it to populate its social network without getting their permission. The FTC charged that was false or misleading and constituted a deceptive practice. The next part of the story:   The not-so-sweet results when users clicked the “Sweet!”","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3196242,"description":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't wfg-adm109 October 21, 2013 | 11:17AM Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't By Lesley Fair There are lots of nifty phone accessories, bottle holders, tow straps, pet items, and lanyards out there.  So a label that says the product is Made in the USA may help make the decision for some consumers.  When it bears the American flag and says “TRULY MADE IN THE USA,” that just might seal the deal.  But according to an FTC lawsuit , a lot of the “Made in the USA” merchandise touted by Logan, Utah-based E.K. Ekcessories wasn’t really made in the USA – turning the company’s claims from a Yankee Doodle Do to a Yankee Doodle Don't. E.K. Ekcessories sells a variety of outdoor equipment through popular retailers and on its own site.  In addition to the labels, the company touted its products’ U.S. pedigree with statements like “For 28 years E.K. Ekcessories has been producing superior quality made accessories in our 60,000 sq. ft. facility in Logan, Utah,” and “Our source of pride and satisfaction abounds from a true ‘Made in USA’ product.” To say an item is made in the USA, all or virtually all of it has to be U.S.-made.  In other words, all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, and the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. That’s the standard explained in the FTC’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims.  But according to the complaint, in many cases, E.K. Ekcessories made “Made in USA” representations that were flat-out false.  In other instances, the FTC says the company slapped a label on a product without a reasonable basis for making the claim.  Both courses of conduct violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed order, the company can’t say a product is made in the USA unless all or virtually all of it really is made in the United States.  The order also bans other misleading claims about products’ country of origin. Given that other companies are selling the deceptively labeled merchandise, E.K. Ekcessories has to contact all distributors who bought or received products between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, explaining the FTC’s lawsuit.  The retailers will be asked to pull marketing materials that say all E.K. Ekcessories stuff is U.S.-made or that describe a specific list of products as made in the United States, of U.S.-origin, or “Truly Made in the USA.”  For certain lines of products, they’ll get stickers to cover the inaccurate claims. You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by November 21, 2013. The message for marketers?  First , it’s a good time to brush up on how to comply with Made in USA standards.  The Business Center has a dedicated Made in USA page to make that easier for you.  Second , given just how important many consumers take a Made in USA claim, companies that make that statement falsely or without a reasonable basis are risking law enforcement action.  Truly.","pubDate":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200","titre":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/10/made-usa-avoiding-yankee-doodle-dont"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening.  But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media.  The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant?  No, said the FTC.  According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments.  Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo.  The purpose, says the FTC, was to give readers the misleading impression that the laudatory words had been posted by independent consumers or business users of Spokeo. The FTC’s revisions to its Endorsement Guides made headlines a few years ago.  Ironically enough, the provision that seemed to attract the most attention is one that didn’t change.  It’s the law — and it’s always been the law under Section 5 — that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.  Here’s how the Guides put it:  \"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.\" According to the FTC, by posting comments that conveyed the untruthful impression that they came from satisfied users of Spokeo’s services, Spokeo engaged in false and misleading practices.  To settle the endorsement count in the lawsuit, Spokeo has agreed that it won’t misrepresent, expressly or by implication, the status of any user of a product or service — for example, that someone is an independent, ordinary endorser if that’s not the case.  The company also will clearly and prominently disclose any material connection between an endorser and Spokeo (or any other entity advertising, selling, or promoting a product) when a connection exists.  What about the bogus endorsements already posted?  Spokeo has seven days to take all reasonable steps to pull them down. Looking for more about complying with the Endorsement Guides?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking and watch this video: While you’re at it, share this post and those resources with your marketing staff, your ad agency, your PR firm, and anyone else who plays a role in your publicity and promotions. Next:  What the Spokeo settlement means for your business, your next ad campaign, and your job search","id":3195787,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements","titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/lights-out-unsubstantiated-pain-relief-claims-deceptive-native-advertising","titre":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 14:10:47 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising lfair June 25, 2020 | 3:00PM Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising By Lesley Fair For consumers struggling with severe or chronic pain, ads for a product called Willow Curve appeared to offer light at the end of the tunnel. But the FTC alleges the marketers made false and unsubstantiated claims for the product , a device that applied low-level light and mild heat to the site of pain – and set people back between $599 and $799 in the process. The proposed settlement also sheds light on the FTC’s ongoing concern with deceptive native advertising. The complaint names two Michigan companies, Physician’s Technology, LLC, and Willow Labs, LLC, and two individuals affiliated with both businesses, Dr. Ronald Shapiro and David Sutton. In ads on national TV, satellite radio, online, and in social media, the defendants claimed that for people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, nerve damage, shingles, fibromyalgia, lupus, torn tendons, and other serious conditions, the light-emitting Willow Curve would provide “real, lasting, proven pain relief, without the costs, risks or inconvenience associated with elective surgery, prescription drugs or office visits.” The defendants also sold Willow Curve through a network of distributors and resellers, supplying them with promotional materials touting the product’s purported health benefits. What’s more, the defendants claimed to have clinical studies to support what they said about Willow Curve and that the FDA had reviewed and approved the device for its advertised pain relief and other health benefits. The FTC challenges those claims as false. The complaint also alleges the defendants advertised a “risk-free” and “money-back” guarantee for consumers if they were “not completely satisfied” within a specified time period. But the FTC says in many instances, the defendants required consumers to jump through hoops to get the hefty purchase price back – for example, by first undertaking a regimen of 92 “treatments” over a 180-day period. According to the complaint, those requirements were hidden behind hyperlinks or buried in paperwork in the Willow Curve box. Despite the defendants’ claim that they issued refunds within seven to ten business days, the FTC says some people never got their money back. Others got a refund a year or more later or only after reporting the defendants to a State Attorney General or the Better Business Bureau. Another notable count relates to the defendants’ use of native advertising. For example, what appeared to be an online magazine article, “Understanding the Gender Gap in Sports Injuries and Treatment,” was actually advertising for Willow Curve. According to the FTC, the defendants hired a marketing company to write this article and others, which looked a lot like the non-advertising content of the magazines and newspapers in which the ads ran. The complaint alleges the articles weren’t identifiable as ads, including when consumers posted or shared them on social media or in email. The settlement includes a judgment of $22 million, which – based on the defendants’ financial condition – will be partially suspended when defendants Shapiro and Sutton each pay $200,000. Among other things, the proposed order requires the defendants to have randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled testing to support a broad range of pain relief claims. The order also prohibits them from representing expressly or by implication that advertising is a statement or opinion from an independent publisher or source. The case illuminates some issues of interest to advertisers. Support pain relief claims with sound science.   There’s a predictable cycle. As more consumers experience chronic and serious pain, more marketers position their products as purported remedies. What comes next?","id":3191275}]