Copy of Media Library (9)

SIIA Commends Biden-Harris Administration on Cybersecurity Partnership for Schools

by Policy

The following statement can be attributed to Paul Lekas, Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy, Software & Information Industry Association.

SIIA congratulates the Biden-Harris Administration and the education community on their partnership on cybersecurity for the nation’s schools. SIIA is proud to be a part of this effort, as we fully support ensuring a safe and trustworthy environment in the world of cybersecurity in education technology.

Many of our members participated in conversations with the Administration leading up to this event with several including Amazon, Google, and D2L announcing public commitments. The announcements today provide a transformative foundation to secure education’s online infrastructure.  Innovation and government interest in the safety and security of technology and information industries is critical to support student needs, strengthen the U.S. economy, and protect U.S. national security.

We are pleased to support the efforts to get this initiative off the ground and will continue to engage in the work of protecting the privacy and safety of all learners.

Copy of Media Library (12)

SIIA Calls for Amendments to Online Safety Acts to Safeguard Children’s Education and Privacy

by Policy
The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) has requested amendments to the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) to protect children and teenagers online. While they appreciate the bills’ intent, they believe the current language may unintentionally harm these vulnerable groups. SIIA emphasizes their commitment to providing safe and educational online environments. We hope policymakers will refine the language to gain support from all stakeholders. SIIA supports protecting children’s privacy and safety but expresses concern that certain provisions in the legislation may prevent access to critical information. We urge a balanced approach to safeguarding rights while ensuring educational opportunities for children and teens nationwide.
Read Full Letter Here
Copy of Media Library (7)

Section 230 and Online Casino Apps: Legal Ramifications and Misapplications

by Policy
The cases are In re: Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 22-16914 (9th Cir.); In re: Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 22-16921 (9th Cir.); and In re: Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 22-16888 (9th Cir.). At issue are various simulated casino apps available in the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, and Facebook App Center. These so-called “social casino apps” simulate a “Vegas-style” gambling experience but differ from traditional casinos in a fundamental way: players cannot win any money.  The only thing they can win is the ability to continue playing. Any chips a player wins, purchases, or otherwise obtains can only be used within the apps. Players cannot cash out. Plaintiffs were allegedly harmed by spending money on these social casino apps. Rather than suing the developers, Plaintiffs have sued Apple, Google, and Meta in separate but parallel putative class action lawsuits. Plaintiffs allege that playing these apps constitutes illegal gambling under the laws of 16 states, and that the Platforms are liable for (1) “offering, categorizing, and promoting” these apps; (2) sharing data with the developers, which the developers use to encourage more allegedly illegal gambling; and (3) facilitating the gambling by processing the payments for virtual chips. The cases present key arguments concerning Section 230 in relation to casino apps. The district court was deemed to have erred in failing to recognize that Section 230 prevents the plaintiffs’ theory of liability concerning payment processing. However, the court correctly rejected the other two theories of liability related to promoting social casino apps and aiding app makers in user engagement and revenue. The court found that the platforms’ promotion of social casino apps was similar to other recommendation functions protected by Section 230. Additionally, the court ruled that the platforms’ assistance to app makers did not make them content providers, as they only provided suggestions, not actual content. Nonetheless, the court allowed the second theory of liability, which concerned the platforms’ payment processing for virtual chips in social casino apps. The platforms argue this ruling is flawed, as the legality of the virtual chips is tied to third-party content (the social casino apps), making them eligible for immunity under Section 230. If the plaintiffs’ argument is valid, the app makers, not the intermediaries providing tools to various app makers, should be the proper defendants. The legality of the virtual chips is intertwined with third-party information and should not render the platforms as publishers. HomeAway’s decision establishes that platforms are not publishers when their conduct’s legality is independent of third-party information. However, the district court misapplied this ruling since the plaintiffs did not claim that payment processing for virtual chips is unlawful apart from the social casino apps. The court’s payment processing ruling contradicts Congress’s Section 230 policy decisions and should be overturned. Ultimately, Section 230 should fully protect the platforms from the plaintiffs’ claims. The amici strongly urge the Court to act on the district court’s decision regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. Specifically, they seek the reversal of the court’s denial of dismissal for certain claims, affirmation of the dismissal for other claims, and the instruction to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaints altogether.
IN RE: FACEBOOK SIMULATED CASINO-STYLE GAMES LITIGATION
IN RE: GOOGLE PLAY STORE SIMULATED CASINO-STYLE GAMES LITIGATION
IN RE: APPLE INC. APP STORE SIMULATED CASINO-STYLE GAMES LITIGATION
Copy of Media Library (6)

SIIA and Coalition Raises Alarm Over Proposed Patent Legislation Threatening U.S. Innovation and Economic Growth

by Policy

SIIA joins other prominent American organizations to address Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Graham regarding concerns over patent litigations.

The organizations voice their grave concern over patent litigation employing invalid patents against U.S. enterprises. They assert that over 40% of challenged U.S. patents have historically been found invalid, highlighting the crucial role of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) review in ensuring patent validity and offering an affordable alternative to court battles. The coalition is deeply troubled by legislative efforts, exemplified by the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL Act), which they argue would further weaken protections against abusive patent litigation, hinder PTAB reviews, deteriorate patent quality, and disadvantage domestic businesses and consumers.

The coalition warns that such legislation would disproportionately favor foreign entities and non-practicing patent holders, harming American competitiveness, innovation, and economic growth. They raise specific concerns about proposals within the PREVAIL Act, which they believe will obstruct fair PTAB review, limit challenges based on prior art, and impose punitive measures on defendants.

Ultimately, the coalition urges lawmakers to reconsider the proposed legislation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining robust mechanisms to correct patent errors and encouraging efforts to prevent such errors from occurring in the first place.

Read Full Letter Here
Copy of Media Library (5)

SIIA Raises Concerns Over Proposed Revisions to Investigatory Powers Act 2016 Notices Regimes

by Policy

The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), representing over 450 companies in various sectors, has expressed concerns about the proposed revisions to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) notices regimes in a letter to the Home Secretary. SIIA supports law enforcement’s efforts to combat criminal activity but believes that the proposed changes would have severe negative consequences.

Criminal lawyers play a crucial role in protecting individual rights, particularly when legislative changes threaten to overreach or compromise civil liberties. In cases where new policies could have adverse effects on privacy and freedom, a criminal lawyer steps in to offer defense and challenge any unjust implications on behalf of their clients.

Lawyers must be knowledgeable about the full scope of these legal changes to anticipate their impact on the justice system and ensure that any new regulations do not infringe upon the foundational rights of those accused of criminal activity.

A Melbourne law firm specializing in criminal defense may find itself increasingly tasked with representing individuals or businesses impacted by such legislative shifts. Criminal lawyers are well-equipped to interpret complex policies, advise clients on their rights, and navigate any new legal obstacles posed by revised laws.

By providing comprehensive defense strategies and advocating for fair treatment, these legal professionals help maintain a balance between law enforcement objectives and individual freedoms, ensuring that justice remains at the forefront of the legal system.

Moreover, criminal defense lawyers are pivotal in fostering public trust in the justice system by upholding its foundational principles. Through diligent case preparation, persuasive courtroom advocacy, and a commitment to ethical practice, they help ensure that every client receives equitable treatment.

Whether addressing charges stemming from new legislative initiatives or longstanding statutes, firms such as Daoud Legal demonstrate the importance of combining legal acumen with a deep understanding of individual rights. Their work not only protects their clients but also strengthens the broader legal framework, maintaining a critical equilibrium between law enforcement powers and personal freedoms.

One of the main issues raised by SIIA is the requirement for pre-clearance of new technologies by the Home Office. This could stifle technological development, particularly privacy-enhancing technologies like end-to-end encryption, which are crucial for consumer safety and cybersecurity. The uncertainty surrounding approval may discourage investments in these technologies, limiting their availability to British residents and potentially undermining privacy and safety worldwide.

The proposed revisions may force non-UK-based companies to comply with changes that affect their products globally, such as providing a backdoor to end-to-end encryption. This could have disastrous consequences for consumer privacy and cybersecurity, and multinational companies might opt to withdraw from the UK market to avoid conflicts with other jurisdictions’ regulations.

Another concern raised by SIIA is the proposal to require immediate compliance with a notice, even before completing the review process. This removes critical safeguards and could lead to unworkable outcomes, where companies are forced to act without proper assessment of the feasibility and impact of the notices.

SIIA warns that these changes may weaken consumer rights and freedoms, harm technological development, and threaten global cybersecurity. The association believes that such revisions could be exploited by malicious actors and could set dangerous precedents for other governments worldwide.

SIIA urges the Home Office to reconsider the proposed revisions and take into account the potential negative consequences on consumer privacy, security, and technological innovation. The association seeks a balanced approach that ensures law enforcement’s objectives while preserving individual rights and a healthy information environment.

Read the Full Letter Here