The City University of New York (CUNY) is offering a series of free workshops to assist Haitians applying for TPS, upcoming workshops are on February 6, 2010 and February 20, 2010. For more information please visit the CUNY website.

Is it possible to sue for internet addiction, online gaming addiction, computer or Blackberry addiction? Who is responsible for someone who has psychological or even physical symptoms from overuse of their computer, portable device or gaming console?

Some might think these questions silly — “Of course the person responsible for using the computer is the cause of the ‘addiction’, you can’t blame the computer company, the software manufacturers or the computer gaming programmers.” However, there was a time when the cigarette manufacturers were considered to be immune from any kind of liability for manufacturing and selling cigarettes and we now know how that turned out. If you have the time, you might want to read the DC District Court decision regarding the history of tobacco use in the United States, it is only 1682 pages, not including Appendixes. Are these new digital technologies the new tobacco? Perhaps, but a few years ago they suggested that “fat lawsuits” were going to be the new area of public health litigation, but most of these cases have gone nowhere with some states even granting food manufacturers and restaurant owners immunity from suit. Perhaps the most famous of these cases was the McDonald’s lawsuit filed in federal District Court in the Southern District of New York The theory upon which this case was based was a New York State consumer law, General Business Law section 349(a), ” (a) Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful.” Most of the provisions of this section of the General Business Law provide that the New York state Attorney General is empowered to bring proceedings, but the final subsection (h) of § 349 provides for a private right of action with treble damages if the manufacturer or seller knowingly violated §349 with a discretionary award of attorney fees:

In addition to the right of action granted to the attorney general pursuant to this section, any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section may bring an action in his own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, an action to recover his actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, or both such actions. The court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to one thousand dollars, if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this section. The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

This section can and has been used in situations where something has been sold and in the process of it being sold or used, something that is known to the manufacturer or seller that is not disclosed to the purchaser or user that has an adverse effect on the purchaser or user, thus in the case of this McDonald’s obesity suit, the purchasers (parents) and users (children) of McDonald’s food, the effect that McDonald’s food was to cause the children abnormal weight gain. This lawsuit settled, no doubt because of the expense and difficulty of proving that the plaintiffs were not aware of the effects of fast food and the costs of discovery, which, in such a case, as in the tobacco cases, can be extremely difficult, time consuming and costly.

Cigarettes were first introduced around the time of World War I, and it took almost 100 years before cigarette companies admitted liability for the health problem they caused.  It may take that long to find liability for addictive computer programs, but will it ever be possible to sue for conduct on an information channel.  You have never heard of telephone addiction, nor of typewriter addiction, or short wave radio addiction, yet it seems plausible to “blame” someone for addictive behavior over the internet or due to misuse of digital gaming technology. Why is that? Are we not able to take responsibility for our actions? Is it because these new type of technology alter our perception of the world? Perhaps. Have these new types of technology changed us? There is a lot of new research asking questions on the effect of these new technologies such as immersive reality (such as Second Life, A Tale in the Desert or World of Warcraft [WoW]).

Doesn’t all technology change the user? In the iron age, tools and weapons changed the ability of humans to hunt and protect themselves. Saws, hammer and nails made woodworking possible. The printing press made book publishing possible. All these technologies changed the human race, so why should yet another technology, developed by humans, be blamed for the evolution of human behavior which appears to be in a constant state of flux anyway.

Perhaps I am playing the devil’s advocate here, but while it is true that these digital technologies are extremely powerful and can be misused, they also give us new possibilities of access to knowledge, transmission of information, broadcasting of specialized timely knowledge (such as we hope to present on this blog from time to time) which can break down boarders and bring people from across the world to a better appreciation and understanding of the many cultures and view points that exist.

If you find this discussion interesting, you may want to watch a new PBS Frontline documentary, Digital Nation. If you missed it on PBS you can watch Digital Nation online.  It shows us how we are all immersed in technology and new developments in education and the military applying these digital technologies. The show was written by Frontline correspondent Douglas Rushkoff and producer Rachel Dretzin.  You can also listen to an interesting interview of them discussing the documentary and their research making it that was broadcast on WNYC on February 2, 2010 on the Phillip Lopate Show.

Google Scholar has made freely available a searchable database of US legal cases. in a blog post on the Official Google Blog the details of this great new development have been found.  According to Google, “We think this addition to Google Scholar will empower the average citizen by helping everyone learn more about the laws that govern us all.” Case citations will often being clickable (as in Westlaw or Lexis) and a “cases cited” function, similar to the manual “shepardizing” of cases many of us learnt in law school will find cases in the new Google database that cite the case your are searching. The database also includes links to various legal journals, though when I tried to click through to results, often only the first page of the journal was available, some kind of paid scholar research account was necessary to retrieve the full article. The coverage will initially include eighty years (80) of federal case law, including Supreme Court decisions from the founding of the Republic, and fifty (50) years of state case law. You can access Google Scholar case law here (will open in a new window).

Will this bring down the cost of Lexis and Westlaw? Probably not as they still monopolize digital access to many of the legal treatises that provides specialized legal knowledge to practitioners in various specialty areas.

In the effort today to get fit or stay fit many consumers become “members” of health clubs. However sometimes the contract they enter into is neither healthy nor for a “membership organization”.

If you feel you have become a victim of fraudulent health club practices at your local gym, swimming pool, athletic  or sports club and you are a resident of New York State you may have some recourse thanks to the provisions of the General Business Law, specifically Article 30, “Health Club Services” Sections 620 to  631. This law is a powerful shield to assist consumers who have been the victims of fraudulent or deception business practices.

This article, like many of the provisions of the General Business Law are powerful, even if relatively unknown, tools that can be used in the protection of consumer rights which applies to “offering instruction, training or assistance or the facilities for the preservation, maintenance, encouragement or development of physical fitness or well being. Such term shall include but shall not be limited to health spas, sports, tennis, racquet ball, platform tennis and health clubs, figure salons, health studios, gymnasiums, weight control studios, martial arts and self-defense schools or any other similar course of physical training” as defined in Section 621. There are exceptions such as not-for-profit organizations (like the Y.M.C.A.) and public school facilities.

Section 627 of the law provides that contracts violating any provision this article (sections 620-631) are “void and unenforceable” giving the consumer powerful protection that can be easily resolved in Small Claims, NYC Civil Court or County Court. Section 626 provides that deceptive acts and practices are prohibited, including misrepresenting the size and facilities of the club you are joining

There is also a powerful “treble damages” and attorney fee clause for violations in section 628 which allow a judge to award up to three times the actual damages and reasonable attorney fees, if incurred by the plaintiff or claimant.  In section 623, it states that contracts cannot be longer than36 months, cannot contain a clause that limits any defenses or waives any claims and the health club cannot charge more than $3,600.

Under the provisions of section 630 the Attorney General of New York State can prosecute violations of the law in addition to the private civil litigation; there are also provisions for a civil fine of up to $2,500 per violation, and violations of section 622-a is a misdemeanor as stated in section 629.

If you think you have been a victim of any deceptive practice by a health club or you feel that their contract has violated any of the provisions of the General Business Law please contact our law office for a free initial consultation to see if we can help you.

The Department of Homeland Security has published the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Notice as required in the United States Federal Register. This notice has set the period for which individuals can apply for Temporary Protected Status which has a begin date of January 21, 2010 until July 20, 2010. A copy of the Notice can be accessed here. This Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has been designated for 18 months under section 244(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If you need assistance with a potential application please read this blog post.