The document issued by the company warned that the Hot Shears™ Monopolar Curved Scissors may develop “micro-cracks,” which “may create a pathway for electrosurgical energy to leak to tissue during use.”* This leaked energy could potentially burn patients undergoing surgery.* Intuitive Surgical stressed, in bold print, that the micro-cracks in the scissors may not be visible to the user.*

The warning, which comes in the wake of several other da Vinci lawsuits, is of particular concern because of the wide range of procedures in which the scissors are used. The Hot Shears™ have been used to cut and coagulate tissue in common surgeries ranging from hysterectomies and prostatectomies to gastric bypass procedures.** There are at least 2,000 da Vinci robots in hospitals across the United States.**

The issue is currently under review at the Food and Drug Administration.** According to one FDA database, surgeons’ reports of accidental burns, punctures, and other “mishaps” (sometimes involving death) associated with the da Vinci system increased 34% between 2011 and 2012.** Because of the surprising number of reported adverse events, the FDA has been polling surgeons about their experience with the robot.

Despite reporting the issue to the FDA and issuing an urgent warning, Intuitive Surgical has attempted to downplay the problem. The company maintains that it has “no confirmed evidence of patient injury attributable to this issue.”** While denying that there was any energy leakage, the company does acknowledge that there was at least one instance in which a patient complained of injury following surgery with an instrument later found to contain micro-cracks.**

Even with a history of lawsuits, Intuitive Surgical has decided not to recall the surgical scissors. Instead, it has simply advised doctors that replacement shears will be available in two to four weeks.** Only time will tell whether further injuries caused by the Hot Shears™ will come to light. In the meantime, the surgical shears are still being used by healthcare facilities across the nation.

* May 8^th Urgent Medical Device Notification by Intuitive Surgical, http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2013/05/10/UrgentDaVinci.pdf
** Crack-Prone Scissors May Burn Patients, Da Vinci Maker Says. Medscape. May 13, 2013, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804067

The lawsuit, Xuedan Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, was filed in the Southern District of New York earlier this year. Each of the named plaintiffs worked as an unpaid intern for one of the Hearst Corporation’s magazines, including Harper’s Bazaar, Marie Claire, and Cosmopolitan.* The magazines required that the interns perform many of the same tasks that paid employees performed.* Nevertheless, Hearst concluded that it did not have to pay the interns for this work because they were in college and eligible to receive academic credit.*

Xuedan Wang and the other plaintiffs in the case recently filed a motion for class certification, which would have allowed them to bring their claims as a group in a single lawsuit. They described the class as consisting of “all persons who have worked as unpaid interns at Hearst Magazines in New York between February 1, 2006 and the date of final judgment in this matter.”*

In order to certify a class, a group of plaintiffs must show that “(1) the class is sufficiently numerous; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the class representative has claims and defenses that are typical of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”* Additionally, plaintiffs must also demonstrate that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior” to litigation by the plaintiffs as individuals.*

In denying the motion, Judge Baer reasoned that the last of these requirements had not been met.* The judge noted that in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the plaintiff failed to put forth evidence that Wal-Mart had a general policy of discrimination across all of its stores. Similarly, Judge Baer held that the unpaid interns had not provided evidence that they had all performed the same duties and obtained the same benefits during each of their internships.*  The question of job duties and benefits was central to the issue of liability in the case. Because several of the interns performed different duties and obtained different benefits, it did not matter that, on a broader level, all of them had been classified as unpaid interns.

This case is just one more example of the reach of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes. The plaintiffs in this case will now have to bring their cases individually. While not impossible, doing so makes the claims much less attractive both to the plaintiffs and their lawyers. Litigating each lawsuit individually will be more costly and time-consuming, and less lucrative with regard to damages.

* Opinion & Order (May 8, 2013), Xuedan Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12cv793. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=291

Various worldwide studies have been conducted regarding the risk of birth defects associated with the use of these medications by women during pregnancy.  The North American AED Pregnancy Registry was established in 1996 to study these risks, specifically focusing on Depakote and other valproate products.  The study found that of the 149 women studied between 1997 and 2003, 16 of the infants born suffered from major birth defects.³  These birth defects include neural tube defects such as spina bifida.

A study conducted by the Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (NEAD) followed more than 300 children born to women being treated with a valproate product for epilepsy between 1999 and 2004.  This particular study included 25 clinics in the U.S. and the U.K.  Researchers found that “Three-year-olds whose mothers took the antiepileptic drug valproate during pregnancy had average IQs six to nine points lower than children exposed to three other antiepileptic drugs.”⁴

Valproate has also been linked to an increased risk of autism in an ongoing study lead by Gus Baker, PhD, FBPsS, of the University of Liverpool in the U.K., “The potential risk for autism in this study was substantial for children whose mothers took valproate while pregnant…”⁵

The Royal Group of Hospitals in Belfast, Northern Ireland performed a study which found that of 203 births to women who took Topamax during pregnancy, 16 had major birth defects.  The study further found that the risk of cleft palate is 11 times higher, cleft lip 11 times higher and genital defects 14 times higher in women taking Topamax during pregnancy.⁸

In 2011, the FDA issued a warning that taking Topamax during pregnancy increases the risk of oral cleft birth defects⁶.  A similar warning was issued for Depakote and other valproate products in 2009 with regards to the increased risk of neural tube defects and adverse effects in cognitive development.⁷

More recently, a study was conducted in Australia at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne Australia to investigate the link between birth defects and the use of Depakote and Topamax.  “The study revealed a statistically significant link between Topamax use during pregnancy and increased risks for giving birth to a baby born with hypospadias and so-called brain “maldevelopments.”  (Hypospadias is when the urethra’s opening is formed on the underside of an infant’s penis).⁹

While the FDA did issue warnings in 2009 and 2011 respectively, these warnings came too late for women whose children have suffered birth defects related to their use of these medications during pregnancy, as the manufacturers did not provide a warning or information about these risks.  As a result, lawsuits are being filed against the manufacturers, Abbot Laboratories and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, to hold them accountable for the harm their products caused.

If you or someone you know has suffered a birth defect that may be related to Topamax or Depakote, please contact Audet & Partners, LLP by calling us toll free at 800.965.1461, or complete and submit our confidential inquiry form on the right side of this page.  Please act now, since the law may limit your right to recovery if you delay.

SOURCES:

1.     http://www.drugs.com/depakote.html

2.     http://www.drugs.com/topamax.html

3.     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050322134452.htm

4.     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415172227.htm

5.     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201162028.htm

6.     http://www.webmd.com/epilepsy/news/20110304/new-birth-defect-warning-for-topamax

7.     http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/Safety-RelatedDrugLabelingChanges/ucm153869.htm

8.     http://birthdefectresource.com/birth-defect-causes/prescription-drugs/seizure-medications/topamax/

9.     http://www.newsinferno.com/?p=43637

According to Sidney Wolfe, M.D., Director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, the Industry is exerting its influence on the FDA in three distinct ways:

1. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act, passed in 1992, provides that pharmaceutical companies must pay a fee in order for the FDA to review their drug applications.  According to Dr. Wolfe, “This system has created a very unhealthy relationship between the industry and the FDA, where the FDA says, “We have to be nice to these people, because they are paying our bills.”
2. The FDA concedes to what the Industry wants  in an attempt to avoid conflict.
3. The absence of congressional oversight.  Prior to 2001, if a mistake was made, a congressional hearing was held, requiring the FDA to explain the situation to the legislative branch.  Currently, there are very few congressional hearings, and “no one is there in the Congress [now].”

The FDA states that its mission is to “…ensure that drugs marketed in this country are safe and effective.  The center’s best-known job is to evaluate new drugs before they can be sold.  The center ensures that drugs, both brand-name and generic, work correctly and that their health benefits outweigh their known risks.”[ii]

Can the FDA effectively and completely evaluate new drugs if the review and approval process is expedited?  This is of major concern as they continue to implement procedures for accelerating the review process to allow the Industry to begin selling drugs prior to a full and comprehensive review, with many studies being conducted after the drugs are already on the market.  “The public does benefit from the accelerated approval process.  For example, if a drug is potentially life saving and there is an immediate need, it could be useful to have the drug available sooner.”[iii]  However, this concept can be problematic when the Industry abuses it to get their drugs on the market faster.

The procedures[iv] that the FDA has implemented for accelerating the approval process are as follows:

• Fast Trackexpedites the review of drugs to treat serious diseases and fill an unmet medical need.
• Accelerated Approvalallows earlier approval of drugs to treat serious disease, and that fill an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint (a marker – laboratory measurement, or physical sign – that is used in clinical trials as an indirect or substitute measurement that represents a clinically meaningful outcome, such as survival or symptom improvement).
• Priority Review is for drugs that offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists.  It means that the time it takes the FDA to review a new drug application is reduced.

These accelerated approval processes are disconcerting since the adequate amount of time necessary to thoroughly evaluate a drug is not being provided, which can lead to a potentially dangerous product with an FDA endorsement, being used by the public.  A poignant example of this is Avandia, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.  This drug is used to treat type 2 diabetes and received accelerated FDA approval.  Unfortunately, a study released after the drug was already on the market determined that it was linked to liver toxicity, heart attack, and a 43 percent increase in heart-related problems.  Subsequently, the FDA required that the drug be re-labeled with its most serious warning called a “black-box” warning.

SOURCES:

A hysterectomy is the second most common surgery in the United States, second to cesarean section¹.  There are three different types of hysterectomies:

1.     Partial (aka subtotal or supracervical) removes just the uterus, leaving the ovaries, cervix, and fallopian tubes intact ².

2.     Total removes the uterus and the cervix¹.

3.     Radical removes the whole uterus, tissue on the sides of the uterus, cervix, and top part of the vagina³.

In all three procedures, the ovaries and fallopian tubes may or may not be removed, depending upon the medical necessity.

There are five types of methods¹ used to perform a hysterectomy:

1.     Abdominal hysterectomy – an incision in the abdomen to remove necessary reproductive organs.

2.     Vaginal hysterectomy – an incision in the vagina to remove necessary reproductive organs.

3.     Laparoscopic hysterectomy – four small incisions in the belly, one of which is used to insert a laparoscope (lighted tube and small camera) enabling the doctor to see the organs and cut the uterus into small pieces for remove through the other three cuts.

4.     Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy – an incision in the vagina, with removal of necessary reproductive organs assisted by laparoscope.

5.     Robotic-assisted surgery – doctor uses a robot to make cuts in the belly and remove necessary reproductive organs.

Women typically require a hysterectomy when they have been diagnosed with cancer of the uterus, ovary(ies), cervix or endometrium; fibroids, which are non-cancerous, muscular tumors; endometriosis, which is development of the uterine lining outside the uterus⁴; prolapse of the uterus, which is collapse of the uterus into the vaginal canal⁵; adenomyosis, aka uterine thickening⁶; chronic pelvic pain; abnormal vaginal bleeding; and Intrauterine Device (IUD) complications.

Rebecca, a 29-year-old healthy woman, chose to use the Mirena IUD as her source of birth control.  The device was originally placed in 2002, subsequently removed five years later, and another placed in 2007.  After experiencing continued severe chronic pelvic pain after a laparoscopy connected to a ruptured ovarian cyst, Rebecca’s doctor recommended a hysterectomy.  It was discovered that she had a severe infection and resulting scar tissue that were directly associated with the Mirena IUD⁷.

If you, your wife, or a loved one, has suffered physical complications that may be tied to the Mirena IUD, please contact Audet & Partners, LLP by calling us toll-free, at 800.965.1461, or visiting our website at http://www.MirenaComplaints.com. Please act now, since the law may limit your right to recovery if you delay.

SOURCES:

1 http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/hysterectomy.cfm#top

2 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM03929

3 http://women.webmd.com/guide/hysterectomy

4 http://women.webmd.com/endometriosis/default.htm

5 http://www.emedicinehealth.com/prolapsed_uterus/article_em.htm

6 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001513.htm

7 http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1166710

One of the most serious complications associated with the Mirena IUD is perforation of the uterus or migration of the IUD within the body. These complications may cause further problems that include but are not limited to:  injury or perforation of other organs, infection, adhesions, infertility, and/or ectopic pregnancy.

Symptoms[i] of uterine perforation and/or migration include:  lower abdominal pain, severe cramping, bleeding, nausea, vomiting, and/or fever.  “A ‘missing’ IUD string should raise suspicion”[ii] of IUDs that may have perforated the uterine wall or migrated within the body

Oftentimes, the symptoms are mistaken for other health concerns, as was the case with a woman who was treated for non-existent ovarian cysts.  She posted her experience on the CureZone.org[ii].  After two years, many visits to several doctors, x-rays, ultrasounds, a CAT Scan finally enabled doctors to see that the Mirena IUD had punctured this woman’s uterus in two places, requiring surgery for its removal.  She continued to experience issues relating to remaining scar tissue in her uterus.

In other cases, upon being unable to locate the IUD, doctors have indicated to patients that the IUD must have been expelled.  Seven weeks after delivery, a 31-year-old woman underwent insertion of an IUD.  One year later, the doctor was unable to find the IUD upon physical examination, ultrasound and x-ray.  It was therefore assumed that it had been expelled.  Later that year, upon x-ray of the lumbar spine, the IUD was located and surgically removed.[iii]

Melody Williams of California experienced abdominal cramping and when doctors attempted to remove the IUD, they discovered that it had migrated through her fallopian tube, resulting in infection.[iv]

According to a study conducted by ehealthme.com[v], as of March 20, 2013, of 58,328 women who reported experiencing negative side-effects related to the Mirena IUD, 1,394 indicated that their IUD had migrated from their uterus to other locations in their bodies.  WebMD.com indicates that perforation will occur in 1 out of 1,000 women.  Considering that over two million women have been implanted with the Mirena IUD[vi], these odds are extremely alarming.

In an effort to warn and educate other women about these issues, those who have experienced uterine perforation or migration of the Mirena IUD have created numerous blogs to share their experiences.  Below are a few samples of what is being said by these women who have been negatively affected:

http://mirenamishap.blogspot.com/2008/10/my-mirena-experience.html

http://4boysforme.blogspot.com/

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-591555.html

If you used the Mirena IUD and have experienced serious complications, our experienced product liability attorneys at Audet and Partners, LLP offer a free consultation so that we can evaluate your legal claim and advise you of your options.  We invite you to call us at (800) 965-1461 or fill out the confidential case inquiry form on the right side of this page.

SOURCES:

Pelvic Organ Prolapse (“POP”), aka bladder prolapse, and Stress Urinary Incontinence (“SUI”) are common conditions in women.  The University of Rochester Medical Center conducted a study[i] of 16,616 women with a uterus and found that 41% have experienced POP.  SUI’s prevalence is said to occur in 30% of women five years after a vaginal delivery[ii], but due to its seemingly embarrassing nature, SUI is underreported and many who suffer from it do not seek treatment.  Dr. Memel Harrison conducted a study[iii] through a questionnaire, which found that 46% of the 314 women (between the ages of 20-80) that responded correctly to the questionnaire had SUI.

POP is when supportive tissues in the pelvic region become weak and because of the arrangement and location of the uterus, bladder and rectum, they can herniate or bulge into the vaginal canal.[iv]  SUI is the unintentional loss of urine due to physical movement or activity (i.e. coughing, sneezing, lifting, etc.[v])  POP and SUI[vi] are commonly caused by pregnancy and childbirth, menopause (decrease in estrogen levels can lead to weak pelvic muscles), age, and obesity.

Surgical mesh, originally developed in the 1950s for the treatment of hernias, became a popular treatment for POP and SUI in the ‘90s, known as transvaginal mesh.  It is a type of sling that is positioned to provide support for the affected organ(s) relating to POP, or under the urethra and bladder relating to SUI[vii].  The FDA fast-tracked its approval process to allow manufacturers to begin selling it prior to a full FDA review, which can be lengthy and costly.

Serious complications have been reported after implantation of the device, including:

• Vaginal mesh erosion
• Pain (including during intercourse)
• Infection
• Urinary problems
• Neuro-muscular problems
• Vaginal scarring/shrinkage
• Emotional problems
• Organ perforation

The FDA conducted a search of adverse event reports received between January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2010, which were directly associated with the transvaginal mesh implants; this search which identified 3,979 reports of injury, death and malfunction.[viii]  As a result, the FDA issued an update stating that “…serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare…furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is more effective than traditional non-mesh repair in all patients with POP and it may expose patients to greater risk.”viii

In July 2011, the FDA warned that there was a five-fold increase of injury relating to insertion and use of the transvaginal mesh.[ix] According to an article published by the New York Times in January 2012, 185,000 women underwent the procedure for implantation of the transvaginal mesh in 2010 alone.  That same year, 15% of those women experienced potential complications.[x]   Frequently, surgical revision or removal of the transvaginal mesh is necessary, which can be painful, costly, and dangerous.

SOURCES:

Social media has existed as a platform for patients with health concerns since the 1990s. “Some people are surprised to learn that online discussion forums and listservs dedicated to specific patient populations had their genesis in the 1990s…when we consider that people with issues (especially rare ones) are driven to find the information they need, it makes perfect sense.”[ii]    This drive for information is the perfect source for pharmaceutical companies to gain “a better understanding of patient needs” and a “familiarity with the social channels they use and the ways they interact.”ii  However, the risks associated with pharmaceutical companies engaging in social media have inhibited their ability to capitalize on these opportunities.

These risks are directly connected to FDA regulations regarding reporting of adverse drug experiences.  The FDA defines an adverse event as follows[iii]:

Any adverse event associated with the use of a drug in humans…including the following:  An adverse event occurring in the course of the use of a drug product in the professional practice; an adverse event occurring from drug overdose whether accident or intentional; an adverse event occurring from drug abuse; an adverse even occurring from drug withdrawal; and any failure of expected pharmacological action.

Should a pharmaceutical company become aware of an adverse event, they are required to report it as an “Alert Report” within 15 days of initial discovery.  This provision is the main source of grief for pharmaceutical companies and their ability to actively engage in social media due to the fact that social media is a platform for discussion and feedback.  “Companies are concerned that commenters will post about adverse side-effects, off label use of drugs and inappropriate comments.” [iv]  The content of the comments left by patients is of particular concern because of the FDA requirement that adverse drug experiences be reported.

The FDA has yet to provide concrete guidelines to pharmaceutical companies regarding the requirements for reporting of such comments.  In 2001, a draft called “Postmarketing Safety Reporting for Human Drug and Biological Products Including Vaccines,” was issued that advised pharmaceutical companies to report these types of comments if they meet four criteria[v]: 1. An identifiable patient; 2. An identifiable reporter; 3. A suspect drug or biological product; 4. An adverse experience or fatal outcome suspected to be due to the suspect drug or biological product.

One of many challenges of this type of proposed advisory guideline to pharmaceutical companies is the sheer mass amount of social media content and a company’s ability to collect that content and review it to determine if it falls within these guidelines.

A simple solution to this problem would be for pharmaceutical companies to restrict the ability of readers to post comments or require pre-approval prior to posts being published, which was their initial plan of action until a change in Facebook policy restricted this option.   When this occurred, many companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Astrazeneca removed their Facebook pages.  “The regulatory environment and changes in Facebook functionality are creating a much more difficult environment for managing these kinds of pages, “ said Bill Price, a Johnson & Johnson spokesman[vi].

Despite an email from Shelly Brugess, an FDA spokesperson, in 2011 stating that, “Policy and guidance development for promotion of FDA-regulated medical products using the Internet and social media tools are among our highest priorities,”vi nothing has been issued and pharmaceutical companies remain “in the dark as to how expansive their obligation is with respect to adverse drug experience reporting via social media…”vi

Over objections raised by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals*, the United States Judicial Panel (“USJP”) on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated most federal lawsuits alleging injuries caused by the Mirena intrauterine device. In the matter of In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, the Panel ruled that cases alleging the migration and/or perforation of the device, and the inadequacy of the warnings issued by Bayer with regard to these risks, will now be heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the Order signed by Acting Chairman Kathryn H. Vratil, the USJP noted that:

“Transfer under [28 U.S.C.] Section 1407 will offer the benefit of placing all related actions before a single judge who can structure pretrial proceedings to accommodate all parties’ legitimate discovery needs while ensuring that common witnesses are not subjected to duplicative discovery demands.”

In a hearing last month in San Diego, attorneys representing women alleging injuries caused by the Mirena IUD, including William M. Audet of Audet and Partners, LLP in San Francisco, CA, argued that the number of claims now being filed was of a size that clearly warranted consolidation.* The USJP apparently agreed in its Order, ruling that transfer of the Mirena lawsuits “promotes the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”

“In consolidating the large number of Mirena lawsuits spread throughout the United States, the USJP is ensuring the efficient administration of justice for women who have suffered serious injuries allegedly caused by the Mirena IUD ranging from dangerous abscesses to infertility,” explains William Audet. “We look forward to seeing that these claims are properly addressed in the multidistrict litigation established by today’s Order.”

The Mirena IUD, manufactured by Bayer, was approved by the FDA in 2000 as a contraceptive device recommended to women who have had at least one child. This small, t-shaped plastic device is inserted by a health care professional and can be left in place for up to five years.**

Among its marketing strategies for the Mirena IUD, Bayer held “Mirena Parties” for “busy moms” in connection with the social networking site Mom Central. At these gatherings, a representative from Mom Central was joined by a nurse practitioner. The orchestrated presentation included a marketing script touting the ability of Mirena to help women “look and feel great” and heighten sexual intimacy with their partners.**

If you, or one close to you, may have suffered serious side effects as a result of use of the Mirena IUD, you can request a free case review by calling Audet and Partners, LLP at (800) 965-1461, or by visiting http://www.mirenacomplaints.com online.

SOURCES:

* http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/3/prweb10561279.htm

** http://audetlaw.com/index.php/case/mirena_iud_lawsuits

This law was passed in 1986 and has yet to be updated. Its purpose was to “expand and revise federal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping provisions.”1 This law permits the government to obtain a plethora of personal information without a warrant. This information includes e-mail, Facebook and other social media messages, documents in your “cloud,” etc. “Online privacy law shouldn’t be older than the Web, and American’s shouldn’t have to choose between new technology and privacy.”2 An update has been filed by the House of Representatives, “ECPA Part 1: Lawful Access to Stored Content;”3 therefore, reform is on the horizon.

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)

This law would instruct companies on how to share cyber threats with the federal government, and the federal government would then use the information as follows:

A. Cyber security purposes;
B. Investigation and prosecution of cyber security crimes;
C. Protection of individuals from the danger of death or serious bodily harm;
D. Protection of minors from child pornography, any risk of sexual exploitation, and serious threats to the physical safety of such minor;
E. To protect the national security of the United States.4

These uses all sound beneficial to the general public, except that the bill creates several privacy issues that the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) objects to, such as: “Authorizing companies to disclose users’ data directly to the NSA, a military agency that operates secretly and without public accountability,” and “Broad definitions that allow users’ sensitive personal information to be used for a range of purposes including ‘national security,’ not just computer and network security.” 5“National Security” is not specifically defined in this context, thereby allowing the NSA discretion as to how your personal information is used.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

This law was passed in the late 1980s, updated in the 90s, and has a broad range of restrictions, but in a nutshell, it restricts the unauthorized access and disclosure of information that could be used to injure the United States.6 Reform of this law is currently at a standstill, although the Obama administration has submitted a proposal, “The Obama Administration’s Cybersecurity Proposal: Criminal Provision,” 7 which would supplement several of the sections contained in the original law.

Trans Pacific-Partnership Agreement (TPP)

Of the four laws currently being debated, this specific law is unique in that it operates on an international level. It is currently in its 17th round of negotiations and covers a variety of topics relating to trade between nine countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the U.S. Its purpose is to, “…enhance trace and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote innovation, economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs.”8 How do these objectives relate to privacy laws? The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) feels that several provisions contained in the TPP, specifically the extension of intellectual property laws currently in existence in the U.S., “would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate.”9 The impacts on technology appear to be more in depth than what is contained on the surface of the TPP.

The EFF points out that the U.S.’s copyright laws contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), are far from perfect, and adoption of such laws on a global scale would be contrary to the much needed reform of the DCMA, and would be conflicting to the progression of the other eight countries’ own laws in this regard.

_________________

[1] http://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/

[2] http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/modernizing-electronic-communications-privacy-act-ecpa

[3] http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/03192013_2/Statement%20ECPA%20Part%201.html

[4] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3523ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3523ih.pdf

[5] https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1803week-action-opposing-cispa-0

[6] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8

[7] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41941.pdf

[8] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

[9] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp