Comments on: Sears website privacy class action http://overlawyered.com/2008/01/sears-website-privacy-class-action/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sears-website-privacy-class-action Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 27 May 2012 05:00:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: bob neal http://overlawyered.com/2008/01/sears-website-privacy-class-action/comment-page-1/#comment-10272 bob neal Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:11:44 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5740#comment-10272 Ben, that's not the point. The point is there has been no harm to redress. And James, the RIAA case is significantly different. If Sears had advertised "get your customer information here" the RIAA case might be applicable. Ben, that’s not the point. The point is there has been no harm to redress. And James, the RIAA case is significantly different. If Sears had advertised “get your customer information here” the RIAA case might be applicable.

]]> By: Ben Edelman http://overlawyered.com/2008/01/sears-website-privacy-class-action/comment-page-1/#comment-10271 Ben Edelman Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:32:13 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5740#comment-10271 I can't agree that Sears "quickly" responded to this problem. Unambiguous emails indicate that Sears staff had known about this problem for 3+ weeks and had not taken action. I can’t agree that Sears “quickly” responded to this problem. Unambiguous emails indicate that Sears staff had known about this problem for 3+ weeks and had not taken action.

]]> By: James http://overlawyered.com/2008/01/sears-website-privacy-class-action/comment-page-1/#comment-10270 James Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:16:21 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5740#comment-10270 In an unrelated case, a district court judge recently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070824/174537.shtml" rel="nofollow">ruled</a> that merely "making available" information in a way that is publicly accessible, but should not be, is illegal. Wouldn't similar logic apply here? In an unrelated case, a district court judge recently ruled that merely “making available” information in a way that is publicly accessible, but should not be, is illegal.

Wouldn’t similar logic apply here?

]]>