Welcome back for another week of What's Next, where we report on the intersection of law and technology. Here's what we've got for you today:

>> Venmo and Cash app users take on Fintech firm Plaid over privacy concerns.

>> SCOTUS drops a bomb for dot-coms.

>> Will this Amazon case make it harder to punish owners of killer AIs?

Let's chat: Email me at [email protected] and follow me on Twitter at @a_lancaster.

SPONSORED BY ALM

Announcing Two Incredible Keynote Speakers for the Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference

WIPL is known for having some of the most engaging and energizing keynote speakers attend to share their thoughts, experiences, war stories and tips on effective leadership. And this year is no exception. This year, we are grateful to welcome two remarkable women come and inspire us: Tina Tchen, the President and CEO of the "Times Up" Legal Defense Fund and Paula Boggs, Founder of Boggs Media LLC and Former Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Law and Corporate Affairs at Starbucks from 2002-2012. READ MORE

The 'Greatest Database of Consumer Transactional Data in History'

Last week, Cash app and Venmo users hit financial technology company Plaid Inc. with a second privacy class action complaint in the Northern District of California after Visa announced plans to acquire the company for $5.3 billion in January.

Robins Kaplan filed the lawsuit Thursday, alleging that Plaid has violated the privacy rights of millions of consumers when connecting their payment apps to banks.

Plaid gathers nitty gritty details of consumers' financial transactions through the Venmo, Coinbase, Square's "Cash App," and Stripe platforms, according to the suit. When users connect payment apps to their banks, plaintiffs contend that Plaid stores their credentials and uses them to collect five years worth of transactional data and continues to track users' data going forward.

The result is what Plaid calls 'the greatest database of consumer transactional data in history," wrote a team of Robins Kaplan attorneys led by Michael Ram.

"Plaid's scheme is a bait and switch—a sophisticated imitation of the logos and branding of major financial institutions, designed to fool users into thinking that they are interacting directly with their banks when in fact they are interacting only with Plaid," the lawsuit asserts. "After Plaid has gathered reams of a user's sensitive personal data, Plaid aggregates the data with that of millions of other users, chops it up, and sells it to the highest bidder."

The complaint claims Plaid invaded consumers' privacy and violated the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Those are similar causes of action to a complaint filed May 4 by Herrera Purdy; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and Burns Charest.

As for the most recent complaint, a spokesperson for Plaid said the company does not sell and has never sold consumers' personal information or data.

"Consumer data is obtained and used with consumer consent," the spokesperson said in an email. "We believe strongly that consumers should have permission-based access to and control over their financial data, and embody these principles in our practices."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks at the Association of American Law School's annual meeting, Jan. 4, 2020.

SCOTUS Puts A Fine Point on Dot-Coms

If the public doesn't think it's generic, it's not, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a dispute between Booking.com and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The decision overrides a federal rule that prohibited companies from trademarking generic, one-word phrases.

"A term styled 'generic.com' is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the majority. "Consumers, according to lower court determinations uncontested here by the PTO, do not perceive the term 'Booking.com' to signify online hotel-reservation services as a class. In circumstances like those this case presents, a 'generic.com' term is not generic and can be eligible for federal trademark registration."

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that sticking ".com" to the end of the word does not identify and distinguish the entity.

"It is merely a necessary component of any web address," he wrote. "When combined with the generic name of a class of goods or services, '.com' conveys only that the owner operates a website related to such items."

Battle of the Bots

A copyright suit over an Amazon algorithm that selects photos to appear on product pages quickly transformed into a philosophical debate over killer robots at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse of the Northern District of California Friday.

Williams-Sonoma argues that the algorithm sometimes picks the company's copyrighted photos and misrepresents third-party sellers of the retailer's goods as authorized dealers.

Skilled in the Art's Scott Graham reported that Durie Tangri partner Mark Lemley and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Annette Hurst debated if Amazon's algorithm had the human-like volition necessary to be held liable for infringement. Representing Williams-Somona, Hurst said that a win for Amazon in this case could make it harder to hold creators or users of artificial intelligence responsible for killings by AI-driven drones.

Lemley disagreed on the stakes of the suit. "This is not a rogue AI case. We are not in that world," the Durie Tangri partner said. "I can imagine we might end up in such a world at some point, but we are not there now."

Hurst said that the AI is known internally at Amazon as "Frankenstein."

"The reason they call them Frankenstein, your honor, is because Amazon is Dr. Frankenstein creating these monsters," Hurst said. Frankenstein is "picking winners, and it's using others' copyrighted content to do so, and directly financially benefiting by taking a cut."

For more on killer robots and dispatches from the IP world, sign up for Skilled in the Art here.

Abbe Lowell counsels Jack Abramoff at the Oversight Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Tribal Lobbying Matters. Credit: Roberto Westbrook.

On the Radar

Reunited: Disgraced Lobbyist Jack Abramoff Leans on Abbe Lowell for Defense Again "We allege that these defendants repeatedly misled investors into funding non-existent technology, falsely claiming that the technology would make digital asset transactions more secure," said Kristina Littman, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Cyber Unit, in a press release announcing the charges. "Investors are entitled to truthful information so they can make fully informed investment decisions." Read more from Ross Todd here.

US-Based Legal Tech Companies Could Face Skills Shortage After Work Visa Bans "The same talent Google needs is the same talent we need, there's no difference," said iManage CEO Neil Araujo. "Our volume is probably smaller, but it's the same skill sets that we are competing for." Read more from Victoria Hudgins here.

'I Don't Think We're Ever Going Back': Court Watchers Call on Judiciary to Adopt Transparency, Accessibility Reforms Post-Pandemic "This pandemic was not the disruption any of us wanted," said Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget McCormack. "But it might be the disruption we needed to transform the judiciary into a more accessible, transparent, efficient and customer-friendly branch of government." Read more from Jacqueline Thomsen here.

Berkeley Law Announces Fully Remote Fall Due to COVID-19 "Obviously, my hope was that we would be able to return to usual classes for the Fall semester," Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in an announcement. "I make the decision for all online classes because I am convinced that it is the best for the health of all in our community and will provide the best education for our students compared to the available alternatives." Read more from Karen Sloan here.

Thanks for reading. We will be back next week with more What's Next. Stay safe and healthy, everyone.