Bill-not-track of California waiting for 2011

It is a position invited by Richard b. Newman - lawyer Marketing Affiliate

The California Bill which potentially requires Web sites to allow users to refuse to be followed online is waiting for the rest of 2011, while the sponsor of the Bill controversial attempts to find compromises between its supporters and opponents.  Senator Alan Lowenthal (D), sponsor of the Bill, instead plans to resume the hearings on it in 2012 at the beginning.  Bill adopted the Judicial Committee of the Senate on a vote of 3-2 after its first hearing in May 2011.  It would be then heard in the Committee on appropriations of the Senate in January 2012 and then to the Senate by the end of January 2012 to stay alive in the session and to the Assembly for consideration.

In the meantime, Lowenthal was clear that his intentions are to hold many meetings are necessary and agree amendments to the Bill to the appropriations Committee he is comfortable with.  It is expected that the starting point will be a list of the objections provided by the coalition of companies and industry groups, including the California Cable & Telecommunications Association, Chamber of Commerce of California, Direct Marketing Association, TechNet and Internet Alliance.  Opponents of the proposed Act argued strongly that the Bill would impose an undue burden on the trade of the person, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of United States.  Other constitutionally based challenges include excessive of the Bill and the discretion of amount excessive given the Attorney General when adopting regulations to achieve the Act said purpose.  The measure gives as Attorney General the authority to exempt ordinary commercial practices, such as support for the customer, analysis of the use of the products, accounting, audit and protection of personal information.  Opponents of the Bill have also criticize the exemption expressly of Federal Governments, States and local.

Under the proposed law, the Attorney General, in close collaboration with the State of the Office of Privacy Protection, make 12 July 2012 regulations requiring companies to provide consumers with a mechanism to opt-out "follow step."  Companies would be also required to disclose to consumers the personal information it collects on the use of information, and with whom he would share the information.  Those who violate this right would be subject to civil proceedings to consumers under a private right of action within two years an alleged violation and would be responsible for damages, punitive damages and lawyers and fresh.

The Bill is sponsored by the consumer Watchdog, which also supports a Bill similar to the Congress by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Richard b. Newman is an Attorney of law Internet and
Counsel for litigation hinch newman llp (New York & California)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Advertising disclosure policy*.

View the original article here

Five point key on the new tax for the sale of California - Impact on the industry of Affiliate Marketing

Friday, 15 July, 2011 at 10: 58 by Linda Buquet

Chris Trayhorn more on mThink posted just a few good questions and overview of the new California tax law and its impact on marketing affiliate. It is certain that wanted that you saw it and I look forward by your thoughts.

Five key Points on new sales of CA of tax

Armageddon arrived there in the fight against two weeks online sales taxes. California promulgated their version of affiliate sales tax and Amazon, with many other merchants online, has responded by ending their CA affiliate programs. But as the dust begins to settle, who are the winners and losers? And where affiliate marketing sector go from here?

Advertising disclosure policy* link to this entry . Discuss in the Forum of Star 5 . Related entries: Affiliate Marketing,AffiliateManagers - merchant,legal - industry issues . See comments below

New here? Subscribe to the RSS feed or follow me on Twitter. Thank you for visiting!

View the original article here

Amazon threatens to terminate affiliates of CA due to pending California Nexus tax invoices

Unfortunately, it seems that enormous state of California could be the next in line for the tax legislation of anti-affiliate Nexus. Will be very sad for thousands of affiliates California if these bills. And it seems that these bills are likely to spend and go to the law in force in the next 2 days.

Last updated: 6/29 PM 10 bad news! California pass affiliate Nexus tax
through Performance Marketing Association

I wish California would understand that they are not helping the economy of the State, but it hurt! Any fiscal gain, they think that they will do, will be offset by the economic losses due to the small and large companies affiliate, losing income (and therefore pay less income tax), with the staff of layoff (putting more strain on the resources of the State) or moving of California so that they can continue their business in several friendly States.

Yesterday, the PMA made the announcement of apprehension:

Alert: CA to immediately implement nexus tax - effective

Brown, Governor of California announced that it has received enough votes to pass its budget, including the tax affiliate link and link invoices related 2: 153 AB, AB 155 and SB 234. The law will be effective upon signature, but must sign before 1 July 2011

We make all our possible for this block to go forward, but we believe passage is imminent. If you are a publisher based in California, or an outdoor advertiser, please ask immediately inform of a tax or legal professionals.

Andrew Shotland AKA localseoguide @ posted just a picture of the Notice of termination Amazon California Associate program.

TheNextWeb reports:

Amazon terminates Associates in California program because the new tax act

Even if the Bill has not yet been adopted, Amazon is taking the preventive program in California. Apparently, he believes that the Bill will be reviewed and new tax laws will come into force. Amazon has said that the Bill is ' supported by big - box retailers, including most is based outside California, who wrongly seek affiliates of competitors advertising programs.

Geno has some good tips for merchants as always here: bad news from California: tax law subsidiary Nexus on the threshold of

Advertising disclosure policy*.

View the original article here

Amazon uses the California affiliated as pawns in their tax Fight - AMAZON links your PULL

Danny Sullivan captures the essence of so many frustrating issues surrounding this any crappy link to tax fight — especially the way Amazon handles relationships with affiliates.

A good point that he made that I have not thought about yet… All these terminated affiliated links that everything does not go down. Many affiliates have several sites with hundreds or thousands of links Amazon. Most of its affiliated companies are too busy to make links in any way PLUSENT will be scrambling to deal with the domino effect that is sure to follow of this unjust act, tax in California. Amazon will just continue unjustly benefit from affiliates that do not have the time to find and remove all links.

Danny so makes good points and really summed it up. The read, weigh, reblog/tweet it to show your support for the open letter from Danny.

And by the love of God - remove all your AMAZON links! They should not benefit from your efforts after that that they you royally screw. SCREW THEM!

Open letter to Jeff Bezos on putting an end to the Amazon affiliate program in California

Thank you for your letter today, informing me that after seven years to be one of your affiliates - and you have won $ 150,000 at the time - that you "regret deeply" unilaterally terminate my contract with Amazon be affiliated. I also particularly enjoyed the part where you reassure me that this action would not affect my ability to keep the purchase of your business. Nice touch.

Now, because of your dispute on the question of sales tax, you have decided to immediately free what paid you. If I do not find the time to find and kill these links, you keep grabbing the orders that are made through them and keeping the Cup, I have already received.

Get to be your pawn with only 10 hours of notice? You want to just place and terminate my contract with you with only the ten hours notice?

Advertising disclosure policy*.

View the original article here

The California Court expands potential exposure of liability for online advertisers

It is invited by Richard b. Newman - position Attorney Marketing Affiliate

A very important and very controversial decision was published recently by the Court of appeal of California, District of a second on the question of whether CAN-SPAM preempts the anti-spam Act of California (Hypertouch Inc. v. ValueClick Inc., Cal.) CT. (app, DIST 2d, January 18, 2001).  The component of aspect of the responsibility for this decision is critical for those in the affiliate marketing industry because the appears to have held that the CAN-SPAM Act provides for the imposition of strict liability for online advertisersregardless of the level of knowledge and control over the conduct of the editor.

A detailed article, I wrote on the issue is available on the website of the Performance Marketing Association, but Linda has asked me to share the link here, it is certain that 5 Star readers are kept informed.

The Court of appeal of California held that the CAN-SPAM Act does step pre-empt claims related to the law of the State of California of the email service provider

……………………………………………………………………………………
Richard b. Newman is a lawyer of the Internet and
Hinch Newman LLPInternet law specialist
…………………………………………………………………………………… *Political advertising disclosure*.

View the original article here

California Court holds CAN-SPAM applies to Social Networking Communications

It is a position invited by Richard b. Newman - Internet & Affiliate Marketing advocate

The CAN-SPAM Act makes it illegal for people to initiate the transmission of commercial electronic mail messages that contain materially false or misleading header information.  CAN-SPAM defines "electronic mail message" as "a message that is sent to a unique e-mail address.  It sets more "e-mail address" as a "destination, usually expressed as a string of characters, consisting of a single user or mailbox name and a reference to an Internet domain, poster, an electronic mail message may be sent or delivered.

March 28, 2011, the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California ruled that the CAN-SPAM Act (the "Act") restrictions on the transmission of commercial electronic messages not solicited ("UCE") extend beyond traditional email to cover communications to other electronic destinationsincluding the walls of Facebook users, news, and network messages.  Facebook Inc. v. MaxBounty Inc. (N.D. CAL., no. 10 - 4712, 28/3/11).  The decision is a broader judicial interpretations, to date, the types of messages falling within the scope of the Act.

Judge Jeremy Fogel district court noted that this issue was a first impression in the Ninth Circuit, directly on the question of whether the Act applies to social networking communications which are not returned in an "Inbox" comparable to traditional E-mail.  Decisions of the Court of the District of California before have concluded that the Act reached "e-mail-like" messages transmitted through the social network MySpace.  These courts have reached their looking legislative history of the Act score, noting that the Act was designed to ensure the convenience and efficiency of electronic messaging systems and saw no reason in law for its coverage limited to electronic mail.  Thus, enlargement of this analysis, judge Fogel concluded that the Act achieved other types of communications networking social, as well.  These messages require Facebook to engage in operations of routing, therefore, the application of the law to these communications is consistent with the intent of Congress to mitigate misleading commercial communications "overload communication infrastructure."

Facebook has alleged that MaxBounty has violated the law by recruiting affiliates to the unfair and deceptive advertising campaigns which involved the creation of profiles of fictitious Facebook with promises of free products.  To register, users had to agree to notify each of their Facebook friends, among other things.  These notifications are sent according to Subscriber's Facebook account settings, but could potentially have been delivered as a posting on the wall of the user, in its news feed, to the mailbox of the user Facebook message and external users e-mail addresses.  The Court concluded that each type of message could be under the Act.

The Act is intended to apply broadly, and its restrictions on the misleading header information reaches all communications sent to unique, non-electronic destinations only to traditional e-mail.
…………………………………………………………………………………
Richard b. Newman is a lawyer of the Internet and
Commercial litigation Attorney at Hinch Newman LLP
9716…………………………………………………………………………………… *Political advertising disclosure*.
View the original article here