How In-House Counsel Can Mitigate Digital Advertising Risks
For many companies, a major piece of the marketing strategy now includes digital advertising. And while this offers an excellent tool for building a brand, there are a number of risks to consider. This is where in-house counsel have a major role to play in protecting the company.
October 17, 2017 at 04:11 PM
8 minute read
For many companies, a major piece of their marketing strategy now includes digital advertising. And while this offers an excellent tool for building a brand, there are a number of risks to consider.
This is where in-house counsel have a major role to play in protecting the company, according to panelists at the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual meeting in Washington, D.C., who were speaking in a personal capacity and were not expressing views on behalf of their respective companies.
“Advertising used to be very simple,” panelist Andrew Rausa, advertising and privacy counsel at Facebook Inc., said Monday. You had a brand that maybe contracted with an agency to design a commercial, for instance, and then contracted with a publisher, he said. “Since then, the landscape has gotten a lot more complex. There are additional companies that have come into this space, and the technology has certainly gotten more and more complex.”
To begin with, in-house counsel are critical when it comes to brand safety, Rausa said. “Brand safety is the concept of making sure the brands that companies have spent thousands, millions, maybe even billions of dollars [on] … aren't damaged; they aren't tarnished by putting those brands or advertisements next to unsavory content on the internet,” he said.
This means asking vendors for transparency, Rausa said, which could include requiring them to provide an exhaustive list of where a company's brand may show up, as well as a list of where it actually did show up and an outline of the remedies if those two don't line up. “And then finally, something to consider is, if you get called out, if you get that bad press … are they going to raise their hand? Are they going to say: 'Sorry, we were the ones that did it,' so that your brand doesn't get tarnished?”
The next consideration is making sure ads show up in the right place and to the right people, which inevitably means addressing privacy issues and regulations, Rausa said. In the U.S., the main regulator in this space is the Federal Trade Commission, he explained, adding that the primary way to “avoid the ire of the FTC” is to make sure policies reflect company practices.
“There is such a huge role to be played here for in-house counsel,” Rausa explained, “to be able to push on the various teams that you work with to make sure … that the policies that you have that are online are not going to be inaccurate in terms of what you're actually doing.”
More than just the FTC, there is also self-regulation from two major bodies that provide restrictions around notice to consumers, cross-device data and the collection and use of location data: the Digital Advertising Alliance and the Network Advertising Initiative.
But what are the legal ramifications for not complying with these agencies? You can be “named and shamed” in the press, Rausa said, pointing to when genetic testing company 23andMe was singled out by the Better Business Bureau for not observing ad industry standards. When you get bad press, he added, that's generally when regulators pay attention.
Beyond the FTC and self-regulation, there are also specific laws to consider with respect to digital advertising, such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, said Allison Trimble, associate senior counsel at DST Systems Inc.
What's more, if a company is going to collect data to analyze whether a marketing campaign is successful or determine what future products and services should be offered to clients, Trimble said the first step is to go through a privacy assessment to show that privacy implications have been contemplated when necessary.
“What you're going to do is you're going to sit down with your business and get a feel for what are the different data types you're collecting,” she said. “I think where we're going to see the most education or need for education is that personal information is growing,” such as with the growing trend of considering IP addresses personal information.
For many companies, a major piece of their marketing strategy now includes digital advertising. And while this offers an excellent tool for building a brand, there are a number of risks to consider.
This is where in-house counsel have a major role to play in protecting the company, according to panelists at the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual meeting in Washington, D.C., who were speaking in a personal capacity and were not expressing views on behalf of their respective companies.
“Advertising used to be very simple,” panelist Andrew Rausa, advertising and privacy counsel at
To begin with, in-house counsel are critical when it comes to brand safety, Rausa said. “Brand safety is the concept of making sure the brands that companies have spent thousands, millions, maybe even billions of dollars [on] … aren't damaged; they aren't tarnished by putting those brands or advertisements next to unsavory content on the internet,” he said.
This means asking vendors for transparency, Rausa said, which could include requiring them to provide an exhaustive list of where a company's brand may show up, as well as
The next consideration is making sure ads show up in the right place and to the right people, which inevitably means addressing privacy issues and regulations, Rausa said. In the U.S., the main regulator in this space is the Federal Trade Commission, he explained, adding that the primary way to “avoid the ire of the FTC” is to make sure policies reflect company practices.
“There is such a huge role to be played here for in-house counsel,” Rausa explained, “to be able to push on the various teams that you work with to make sure … that the policies that you have that are online are not going to be inaccurate in terms of what you're actually doing.”
More than just the FTC, there is also self-regulation from two major bodies that provide restrictions around notice to consumers, cross-device data and the collection and use of location data: the Digital Advertising Alliance and the Network Advertising Initiative.
But what are the legal ramifications for not complying with these agencies? You can be “named and shamed” in the press, Rausa said, pointing to when genetic testing company 23andMe was singled out by the Better Business Bureau for not observing ad industry standards. When you get bad press, he added, that's generally when regulators pay attention.
Beyond the FTC and self-regulation, there are also specific laws to consider with respect to digital advertising, such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, said Allison Trimble, associate senior counsel at DST Systems Inc.
What's more, if a company is going to collect data to analyze whether a marketing campaign is successful or determine what future products and services should be offered to clients, Trimble said the first step is to go through a privacy assessment to show that privacy implications have been contemplated when necessary.
“What you're going to do is you're going to sit down with your business and get a feel for what are the different data types you're collecting,” she said. “I think where we're going to see the most education or need for education is that personal information is growing,” such as with the growing trend of considering IP addresses personal information.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readInfluencers Putting Companies on Hot Seat by Demanding 'Reverse' Morals Clauses
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Jury Says $118M: Netlist Wins Another Patent Verdict Against Samsung
- 2Big Law Communication, Media Attorneys Brace For Changes Under Trump
- 3Will England Accept that Digital Assets Are ‘Property’?
- 4Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
- 5Bar Report — Nov. 25, 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250