Judge Bars Gun Access to Defendant Who Played Small Part in Jan. 6 Riot

   A federal judge’s gun rights decision late last month that blocks a Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant’s handgun access appears to set a precedent in interpreting a key Supreme Court decision last year.

   Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg temporarily barred gun possession by Daniel Shaw, who pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating or picketing.

   He entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 despite knowing police were using stun guns and tear gas to keep insurrectionists out. He did not commit vandalism or violence against anyone.

   Shaw, 56, was sentenced to two years’ probation after 10 days of incarceration. He argued that the misdemeanor should not ban him from having a legally purchased gun in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling last June in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.  

   The court ruled that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment, thereby overriding a New York state law requiring gun applicants to show a “proper cause” for a concealed weapon. “Proper cause” normally meant uncontroverted proof of a risk of death by criminals.

   Since then, courts continue to routinely affirm prohibitions on gun possession by felons. Boasberg’s decision might be the first to continue the prohibition as a misdemeanor probation condition.

   “[W]hile Shaw’s role in the mob was minor, the fact of his participation in an insurrection whose aim was to impair the peaceful transfer of power suggests that a firearms restriction during his probationary period is appropriate,” Boasberg wrote for U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “The nature of that event puts Shaw’s offense very far from the types of negligent infractions that some circuits have held do not warrant a firearms restriction.”

   The Justice Department’s criminal complaint says, “The defendant and his minor son entered the U.S. Capitol via the Rotunda Doors at approximately 3:02 p.m. and entered the Rotunda. During their entry, the alarm was sounding from inside of the Capitol and the glass embedded in the Rotunda Doors was shattered. While in the U.S. Capitol the defendant took photographs and videos with his cellular telephone. The defendant and his minor son exited and left the U.S. Capitol at approximately 3:16 p.m.”

   Shaw said he has previously used guns as a hunter with his son and friends and sometimes kept one nearby for self-defense. He had no record of misuse.

   Boasberg said there were other considerations, such as the fact Shaw already was on probation for driving under the influence with a minor child.

   The gun prohibition could prevent additional offenses, protect public safety and make Shaw’s court-ordered supervision during probation easier, the judge said.

   The case is United States of America v. Daniel Shaw, Case No.: 22-CR-1 (EGS) : 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G) (2023).

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Radio Station Owners

Sued by Their Own Insurer

   The owners of a Washington, D.C., radio station are trying to hang on to their insurance after being accused in a recent lawsuit of omitting key information on their application for coverage.

   Directors of Pacifica Foundation Inc. allegedly failed to disclose seven lawsuits filed against them on their insurance application with Richmond, Va.-based Kinsale Insurance Co.

   Among the five stations owned by Pacifica Foundation Inc. is WPFW (89.3 FM), a D.C. talk and jazz community radio station with studios on K Street Northwest. The station’s slogan is "Jazz and Justice."

   Kinsale Insurance sued Pacifica Foundation in federal court in California seeking to be released from coverage for another lawsuit recently filed against the nonprofit radio station owner. Pacifica Foundation is based in Los Angeles.

   The underlying lawsuit is an internal business dispute. It was filed by listeners and staff members who say Pacifica Foundation breached a fiduciary duty and violated its own bylaws and the California Corporations Code by failing to hold a delegate election last fall.

   Pacifica Foundation activated its insurance policy to cover its legal expenses.

   The insurer argues in its separate lawsuit that it should have no duty to cover Pacifica Foundation because of its failure to disclose the other times it was sued.

   "By failing to disclose the existence of the [suits] when it applied for the 2021 policy and the 2022 policy, along with submitting loss runs which did not disclose any of these cases, Pacifica made an affirmative warranty to Kinsale to the effect that other than the specific claims disclosed on the original application, Pacifica had not been the subject of or involved in any litigation ... since at least August 17, 2017," Kinsale’s lawsuit says. "This affirmative warranty was not true."

   The previous lawsuits focused on actions by Pacifica Foundation's board and its employment practices, all of which created additional liability risks, the insurer said.

   "Each of these prior undisclosed lawsuits significantly increased Pacifica's prior loss experience," Kinsale’s attorneys wrote. "Had Kinsale known about these claims, it would have either (a) written the policies with a significantly higher premium; (b) written the policies with different terms and conditions; or (c) not written the policies at all."

   The case is Kinsale Insurance Co. v. Pacifica Foundation Inc., case number 2:23-cv-04097, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Advocacy Group Files Election Complaint

Accusing DeSantis of Using “Soft Money”

   A Washington, D.C., watchdog group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission last week that accuses Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of illegally using state political action campaign money to fund his presidential campaign.

   DeSantis announced May 24 that he is running for the Republican nomination to the presidency.

   His campaign is transferring $80 million in unused money from the DeSantis political action committee for governor to his presidential bid.

   The Campaign Legal Center says in its complaint to the Federal Election Commission that the transfer is “soft money,” which refers to funds raised by a political candidate that evade federal campaign finance laws.

   “Soft money undermines federal campaign finance laws because it is, by definition, money raised and spent outside the scope of those laws,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center.

   “We’re talking about funds from billionaires and corporate special interests who could exert massive influence over the candidate they are financing,” Ghosh said. “Laws banning these funds from being used to seek federal office are there for a reason – to prevent corruption, promote transparency, and ensure that wealthy special interests can’t rig the system even further in their favor.”

   By last August, the DeSantis state PAC, Friends of Ron DeSantis, had raised $142 million to help his gubernatorial campaign, which he won by a landslide in November. Not all of the PAC money was spent.

   By May of this year, the state PAC funds had grown to $225 million, according to the Campaign Legal Center.

   However, the nonprofit advocacy group says DeSantis already was campaigning for president even before his official May 24 announcement. As a result, the $80 million in state PAC money transferred to the presidential campaign should be subjected to the same laws and restrictions as any other federal campaign, the Campaign Legal Center says.

   It accuses DeSantis’ campaign of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limits campaign spending on communication media, adds additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations and imposes disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns.

   As an example, the group says that in March DeSantis gave stump speeches at events in Texas. His trips were apparently funded by state PAC money. 

   Federal campaign law says someone becomes a federal election candidate after receiving or spending more than $5,000 in contributions.

   In addition, DeSantis visited Iowa in March not long after other other presidential contenders in an apparent attempt to make himself visible to primary voters. A news report about that same time said DeSantis privately indicated he planned to run for president.

   The amended Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits “federal candidates and officeholders, their agents, and any entities that they directly or indirectly establish, finance, maintain or control from raising or spending funds in connection with a federal election outside of FECA’s contribution limits, source prohibitions, and reporting requirements — i.e., so-called “soft money,” the Campaign Legal Center complaint says.

   The group asks for an investigation by the Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign finance laws.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit

Accusing Facebook of Deceit

   A judge in Washington, D.C., dismissed a lawsuit last week that the District of Columbia’s attorney general filed against Facebook and its parent company accusing them of misleading consumers about data mining of their private information.

   The lawsuit was based on revelations from the 2018 scandal showing that political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica secretly took data from as many as 87 million Facebook users to help the election campaigns of its clients, including Donald Trump during his 2016 run for president.

   The data was collected by an external researcher who told Facebook he was collecting the demographic information for academic research.

   Shortly afterward, media outlets broadcast an undercover investigative video showing a Cambridge Analytica executive boasting about using prostitutes, bribery and honey traps to discredit politicians running against its clients. He said his company "ran all of Trump's digital campaign."

   The company used the data to help the Trump campaign target voters with ads based on their personal traits.

   Facebook then banned Cambridge Analytica from advertising on its platform. It also demonstrated to government investigators how it had been fooled. 

   Former D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine accused Facebook of using deceit to gather private information on about 300,000 local residents whose user data was gathered by Cambridge Analytica. 

   The D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) prohibits a wide variety of deceptive and unconscionable business practices.

   Facebook and its parent, Meta Platforms, argued in court filings the complaint should be dismissed because the tech giant "repeatedly and accurately disclosed their policies to consumers" and the D.C. attorney general has "failed to produce any evidence of what exactly misled consumers."

   D.C. Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Ross agreed, saying the attorney general’s office failed to prove Facebook made any representations that mislead "reasonable" consumers about a "material fact."

   "The district alleges that multiple Facebook policies and practices, including friend sharing, integration partnerships, the enforcement program, and privacy settings, are misleading representations, omissions, or ambiguous statements under the CPPA," Ross wrote in his order of summary judgment. "Looking at the various terms of service and agreements, it is clear that this was not the case."

   He added, "Facebook clearly and repeatedly made disclosures to users about its policies such that the reasonable user could not have been misled as a matter of law."

   The case is District of Columbia v. Facebook Inc., case number 2018 CA 008715, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Amazon to Pay $30 Million Settlement

Over Alleged Privacy Violations

   Amazon.com Inc. agreed last week to pay more than $30 million to settle complaints by federal regulators who say the tech giant trampled the privacy of children who used its Alexa voice assistant and of users of its home security camera company, Ring LLC.

   The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission say Amazon violated privacy laws by storing recordings of children collected by Alexa, despite telling parents the company would delete the data.

   Amazon is required as part of the settlement to modify its algorithm for collecting and storing private information.

   The dispute with Amazon over Alexa and Ring is part of a growing conflict between government and technology companies over privacy, artificial intelligence and corporate marketing.

   Amazon faces a separate class action lawsuit in New York over biometric information it collected on customers at its Amazon Go stores. The lawsuit says palm scans and measurements of shoppers’ bodies as they were tracked throughout the stores were stored without their consent.

   The Amazon Go stores allow customers who download an app to shop without checking out. Their purchases are stored in a “virtual cart” and paid through the charge accounts.

   Amazon operates the stores at 29 locations nationwide with plans to expand.

   Google, Microsoft and OpenAI are other tech companies that have faced recent regulatory crackdowns or lawsuits over privacy concerns.

   In congressional hearings and public statements last month, executives from tech companies admitted struggling with privacy concerns as they market their services. They also warned the concerns will only grow as artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated.

   So far, federal regulations governing online privacy are spread among a series of laws that each govern a small part of data collection and storage.

   Congress’ most high profile effort was the American Data Privacy and Protection Act introduced last summer. It sought to regulate how organizations use consumer data with standards for data minimization, individual ownership and private rights of action. 

   Opposition from the California delegation and some of their technology industry supporters resulted in the bill dying without a final vote of approval.

   The other option so far has been a series of privacy lawsuits, similar to the one that snared Amazon with the $30 million settlement.

   The Federal Trade Commission accused Amazon of breaching the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by not deleting children's voice and geolocation data gathered by Alexa.

   The company told regulators it retained children's voice and other data to train its Alexa algorithm to respond to children. Although the data was supposed to improve the service, the result was that Amazon was "benefiting its bottom line at the expense of children's privacy," according to a Federal Trade Commission statement.

   Amazon continues to deny wrongdoing. It says it cooperated with the Federal Trade Commission while it designed its Amazon Kids service.

   "While we disagree with the FTC's claims and deny violating the law, this settlement puts the matter behind us," an Amazon statement said.

   A separate part of the settlement requires Amazon to refund $5.8 million to its Ring home security camera customers after employees and contractors were granted access to consumers’ private videos. Amazon purchased Ring in 2018.

   The Federal Trade Commission said Ring and Amazon also failed initially to install security systems – such as multifactor authentication – to protect consumers from cyberattacks.

   In some cases, hackers gained access to Ring cameras' two-way functionality to harass and insult consumers, according to the Federal Trade Commission. They included children who endured racist slurs or sexual propositions.

   In one case, a hacker threatened to injure family members unless they paid a ransom, the Federal Trade Commission said in its complaint.

   The cases are United States v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., case number 2:23-cv-00811, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and Federal Trade Commission v. Ring LLC, case number 1:23-cv-01549, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.