Winston Maxwell writes:
In 2008, when several network operators began experiments with behavioral advertising firms NebuAd and Phorm, privacy advocates cried foul, arguing that network operators should never be allowed to monitor traffic for advertising purposes because the threats to privacy are too great.
One of the telecom operators who experimented with NebuAd in 2008 was sued in federal court for illegally monitoring user traffic. Users brought a class action for illegal interceptions and invasion of privacy. On December 13, 2010 a U.S. District Court in Montana held that users of the network had consented to the operator’s use of NebuAd monitoring technology. The court found that the operator “gave Plaintiffs specific notice of when the NebuAd Appliance trial would commence and provided a link for its customers to opt out of the NebuAd Appliance if they so chose.” It is not clear in the decision whether users got individual e-mails, or whether the specific notice was only posted on the operator’s website.
Read more on Hogan Lovells Chronicle of Data Protection