As we have already seen in the previous articles, the advent of IoT
marks a major shift in the technological dependence of human beings, and the
law is evolving to adapt to the changing demands and requirements corresponding
to new smart machines. Major questions are raised with respect to privacy,
security, data protection, consumer disputes, etc. Here let us have a look at a
few major law suits relating to the IoT industry.
·
VIZIO PRIVACY INFRINGEMENT: The smart-TV
manufacturer was using its software to collect data about consumers, such as
sex, age, income, marital status, etc. and was sharing it with third parties
and began selling targeted advertising data to the consumers. The stated
purpose for collecting information was to give programme offers and
suggestions, but they used it for advertising purposes without obtaining consumers’
consent, which was the reason for the Federal Trade Commission lawsuit filed
alongside the Attorney general of New Jersey and the Director of the State’s
Consumer Affairs Division. On February 6th, Vizio settled the matter by paying
$2.2 Million, and passed a Resolution that they would collect clear consumer
consent before tracking their data.
·
NETFLIX PATENT SUIT: A company named
Blackbird Technologies sued the popular online entertainment giant Netflix a
few months back, on a claim of infringement of patent. The former company owns
a plethora of patents in the US, and survives on the money earned through
lawsuits relating to the infringement of these patents. The patent is in
relation to a method of supplying products from pre-stores digital data in response
to consumer demands send through computer networks. The suit has been filed
against Netflix and three other companies which all have some feature of
digital data duplication, such as downloading and viewing a content offline.
·
CAHEN v TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION: In the
2015 case, the Motor Manufacturers Toyota, Ford and General Motors were sued in
a class action by a consumer, alleging that the computer technology in these
vehicles were prone to easy hacking, as most of the vehicle’s functions were controlled
by a small network of computers. It was claimed that the manufacturers were
available of the security risk, but nonetheless claimed it to be secure, and
this amounted to fraud. However, the Court dismissed the lawsuit, supporting
the defendant’s claim that a mere speculation of a future hacking is not an
actual injury, and since no actual incidents of hacking has taken place, the
case does not stand.
·
ROSE v St. JUDE MEDICAL INC.: In this
2016 case, the plaintiff challenged a variety of medical implants such as
pacemakers, heart-resynchronizers, etc. that use radio frequency wireless
technology, which allows these devices to be monitored remotely, by which the
patient does not need to go to the Doctor for monitoring. The case was based on
a Report that alleged that these in-house transmission devices were not secure,
and the devices were exposed to potential attacks by hackers. The manufactures
denied the security risk, and have in fact filed a case against the publishers
of the Report, alleging defamation.
·
BAKER v ADT CORP.: In the 2014 case, the
plaintiff sued wireless home security devices manufactured by ADT, as capable
of being turned off by using popular technology, under a third-party’s control.
The claim was that the system was falsely triggered by some third party, but
the case was based more on the ‘security’ guarantees given by ADT in its
marketing statements, rather than on the actual quantified damage based on the
alarms falsely raised. The Court dismissed the suit in part, but kept the portions
on consumer fraud, with respect to the claims on “secure communication links.”
These are only a few examples on the
potential matters on which lawsuits may arise, with the IoT technology
proceeding in full blow and entering new spheres of products, including home
security, wearable devices, healthcare, etc. As discussed in the earlier
articles, the questions may arise on a plethora of issues, ranging from IP
infringement, consumer disputes, security, privacy, and so on. The take of law
enforcement on these matters would have to be seen from the decisions made by
the Regulatory Authorities, as when the questions come up before them.
