Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Thomas Julin, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP who represented IMS Health in the case, closely studied the Court’s decision to assess its implications, including with respect to other forthcoming legislation. Julin discusses these implications in an interview and in an article published by BNA’s Privacy and Security Law Report.

Continue Reading How the Supreme Court’s Decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health May Affect Forthcoming “Do Not Track” Legislation

On June 23, 2011, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell that a Vermont law that prohibited the sale of prescriber-identifiable data to drug companies was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Strikes Down Vermont Prescriber Privacy Law

Thomas Julin, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, discusses the Sorrell v. IMS Health litigation in an interview with Fred Cate, Senior Policy Advisor of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership. Mr. Julin represents IMS Health in the case, which concerns the constitutionality of a Vermont law prohibiting pharmacies from selling prescriber-identifiable information to third parties.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Sorrell v. IMS Health

On March 1, 2011, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Third Circuit decision finding that corporations are not entitled to “personal privacy” and therefore may not invoke Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds Corporations Do Not Have “Personal Privacy” under Freedom of Information Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has set oral argument for April 19, 2010, to review the Ninth Circuit’s 2008 decision on employee privacy in Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co.  Although Quon concerns the scope of privacy rights afforded to public employees under the Fourth Amendment, the case also has forced private employers to renew their focus on ensuring robust and consistent enforcement of employee monitoring policies.  Unlike government employers, private employers are not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; instead, they must comply with federal wiretap statutes and state law.  In practice, however, the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test courts apply to state common law privacy claims that govern private employers is virtually identical to the Fourth Amendment test.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s review of the Constitutional test likely will affect how courts view privacy claims brought against private employers.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Sets Oral Argument in Quon v. Arch Wireless for April 19, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review the Ninth Circuit’s 2008 decision on employee privacy in Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co.  In Quon, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the Ontario, California police department and the City of Ontario violated a police officer’s privacy rights by reviewing private text messages the officer sent using a two-way pager issued by the police department.  The police officer had on several occasions exceeded the limit on the text messages provided by the department-paid plan.  Each time, the officer paid for the overage without anyone reviewing his text messages.  When the officer again exceeded the limit, his supervisor requested from the service provider and subsequently reviewed transcripts of the officer’s messages to determine if the messages were work-related.

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Address Employee Privacy