Archive for March, 2017
Friday, March 31st, 2017SaaS Lawyer Kristie Prinz presents on “Best Practices for Drafting SaaS Contracts that Reduce the Sales Cycle” in March 2017. A copy of the video recording is available for viewing at this link: https://theprinzlawoffice.vhx.tv/products/draft-saas-contract-to-reduce-customer-sales-cycle
Posted in Prinz Law Blog, Webinars | Comments Off on SaaS Lawyer Kristie Prinz Presents on “Best Practices for Drafting SaaS Contracts that Reduce the Sales Cycle”
Friday, March 24th, 2017Silicon Valley attorney Kristie Prinz will be speaking on “Best Practices for Drafting SaaS Contracts that Reduce the Customer Sales Cycle & Avoid Disputes” at a webinar hosted by The Prinz Law Office on March 24, 2017 at 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. PST. To sign up for the event, please register at the following link: http://prinzlawstore.com/saas-customer-agreements/.
Tags: atlanta attorney kristie prinz, atlanta lawyer kristie prinz, best practices for drafting SaaS agreements, best practices for drafting SaaS contracts, best practices SaaS agreements, best practices SaaS contracts, california attorney kristie prinz, california lawyer kristie prinz, georgia attorney kristie prinz, georgia lawyer kristie prinz, Kristie Prinz, los angeles attorney kristie prinz, los angeles lawyer kristie prinz, orange county attorney kristie prinz, orange county lawyer kristie prinz, Prinz Law, Prinz Law Office, SaaS agreements, SaaS attorney kristie prinz, SaaS contracts, SaaS lawyer kristie Prinz, san diego attorney kristie prinz, san diego lawyer kristie prinz, san jose attorney kristie prinz, san jose lawyer kristie prinz, Silicon Valley attorney Kristie Prinz, silicon valley lawyer Kristie Prinz, software attorney Kristie Prinz, software lawyer Kristie Prinz, The Prinz Law Office
Posted in Events | Comments Off on SaaS Contract Lawyer Kristie Prinz to Speak on “Best Practices for Drafting SaaS Contracts that Reduce the Customer Sales Cycle & Avoid Disputes”
Thursday, March 16th, 2017If you are in the software industry, you probably have heard of a “service level agreement” or “SLA” but do you really understand what a service level agreement is or why you might need one? The Silicon Valley Software Law Blog addresses this issue in the following blogpost:
http://www.siliconvalleysoftwarelaw.com/service-level-agreements-what-is-a-service-level-agreement-or-sla-and-when-do-you-need-one/
Tags: Atlanta service level agreement attorney, Atlanta service level agreement law firm, Atlanta service level agreement lawyer, atlanta software agreements attorney, atlanta software agreements law firm, atlanta software agreements lawyer, atlanta software attorney, Atlanta software contracts attorney, Atlanta software contracts law firm, Atlanta software contracts lawyer, atlanta software law firm, atlanta software lawyer, Kristie Prinz, los angeles service level agreement attorney, los angeles service level agreement law firm, los angeles service level agreement lawyer, los angeles software agreement attorney, los angeles software agreement law firm, los angeles software agreement lawyer, los angeles software attorney, los angeles software contact lawyer, los angeles software contract attorney, los angeles software contract law firm, los angeles software contract lawyer, los angeles software law firm, los angeles software lawyer, orange county software agreement attorney, orange county software agreement law firm, orange county software agreement lawyer, orange county software attorney, orange county software contract attorney, orange county software contract law firm, orange county software contract lawyer, orange county software law firm, orange county software lawyer, san diego service level agreement attorney, san diego service level agreement law firm, san diego service level agreement lawyer, San Diego software agreements attorney, San Diego software agreements law firm, San Diego software agreements lawyer, san diego software attorney, San Diego software contracts attorney, San Diego software contracts law firm, San Diego software contracts lawyer, san diego software law firm, san diego software lawyer, san jose service level agreement attorney, san jose service level agreement law firm, san jose service level agreement lawyer, san jose software agreements attorney, san jose software agreements law firm, san jose software agreements lawyer, san jose software attorney, san jose software contracts attorney, san jose software contracts law firm, san jose software contracts lawyer, san jose software law firm, san jose software lawyer, service level agreement, service level agreement attorney, service level agreement law firm, service level agreement lawyer, service levels, silicon valley service level agreements attorney, silicon valley service level agreements law firm, silicon valley service level agreements lawyer, silicon valley software agreements attorney, silicon valley software agreements law firm, silicon valley software agreements lawyer, silicon valley software attorney, silicon valley software contracts attorney, silicon valley software contracts law firm, silicon valley software contracts lawyer, silicon valley software law blog, silicon valley software law firm, silicon valley software lawyer, SLA, software agreements attorney, software agreements law firm, software agreements lawyer, software attorney, software contracts attorney, software contracts law firm, software contracts lawyer, software law firm, software lawyer
Posted in Prinz Law Blog | Comments Off on Service Level Agreements: What is a Service Level Agreement or “SLA” and When Do You Need One?
Friday, March 10th, 2017If your company is like most, you may be using a software agreement that has nothing to do with your company’s business practices or business model. Why is this a bad idea? Well, several recent class action suits provide a recent example of why this can be very problematic for a software company. The Silicon Valley Software Law Blog addresses this issue in the following blogpost:
http://www.siliconvalleysoftwarelaw.com/recent-software-class-actions-provide-valuable-lesson-on-why-saas-contracts-should-be-drafted-to-fit-companys-business-model/
Tags: autorenewal, class action suit, Kristie Prinz, Los angeles SaaS agreements attorney, Los Angeles SaaS agreements law firm, Los Angeles SaaS agreements lawyer, Los Angeles SaaS attorney, Los Angeles SaaS contracts attorney, Los Angeles SaaS contracts law firm, Los Angeles SaaS contracts lawyer, Los Angeles SaaS law firm, Los Angeles SaaS lawyer, Los Angeles software agreements attorney, Los Angeles software agreements law firm, Los Angeles software agreements lawyer, los angeles software attorney, Los Angeles software contracts attorney, Los Angeles software contracts law firm, Los Angeles software contracts lawyer, los angeles software law firm, los angeles software lawyer, Orange County SaaS agreements attorney, Orange County SaaS agreements law firm, Orange County SaaS agreements lawyer, Orange County SaaS attorney, Orange county SaaS contracts attorney, Orange County SaaS contracts law firm, Orange County SaaS contracts lawyer, Orange County SaaS law firm, Orange County SaaS lawyer, orange county software agreements attorney, orange county software agreements law firm, Orange County software agreements lawyer, orange county software attorney, Orange County software contracts attorney, Orange County software contracts law firm, Orange County software contracts lawyer, orange county software law firm, orange county software lawyer, SaaS agreements attorney, SaaS agreements law firm, SaaS agreements lawyer, SaaS attorney, SaaS contracts attorney, SaaS contracts law firm, SaaS contracts lawyer, SaaS law firm, SaaS lawyer, San Diego SaaS agreements attorney, San Diego SaaS agreements law firm, San Diego SaaS agreements lawyer, San Diego SaaS attorney, San Diego SaaS contracts attorney, San Diego SaaS contracts law firm, San Diego SaaS contracts lawyer, San Diego SaaS law firm, San Diego SaaS lawyer, San Diego software agreements attorney, San Diego software agreements law firm, San Diego software agreements lawyer, san diego software attorney, San Diego software contracts attorney, San Diego software contracts law firm, San Diego software contracts lawyer, san diego software law firm, san diego software lawyer, san jose software lawyer, Silicon Valley SaaS agreements attorney, Silicon Valley SaaS agreements law firm, Silicon Valley SaaS agreements lawyer, Silicon Valley SaaS attorney, silicon valley saas contracts attorney, silicon valley SaaS contracts law firm, Silicon Valley SaaS contracts lawyer, Silicon Valley SaaS law firm, silicon valley SaaS lawyer, silicon valley software agreements attorney, silicon valley software agreements law firm, silicon valley software agreements lawyer, silicon valley software attorney, silicon valley software contracts attorney, silicon valley software contracts law firm, silicon valley software contracts lawyer, silicon valley software law blog, silicon valley software law firm, silicon valley software lawyer, software agreement attorney, software agreement law firm, software agreement lawyer, software attorney, software company, software contracts attorney, software contracts law firm, software contracts lawyer, software law firm, software lawyer
Posted in Prinz Law Blog | Comments Off on Recent Class Actions Provide Valuable Lesson on Why SaaS Contracts Should Be Drafted to Fit A Company’s Business Model
Friday, March 10th, 2017When SaaS companies and start-ups first contact me, they are often doing so with the idea that there are a few really well SaaS template contracts circulating in the SaaS industry and they seeking the” right” attorney to provide that industry-standard template to them. Alternatively, they contact me telling me that they’ve already put together a draft SaaS contract, and that they just want me to look over and “bless” what they’ve already written based on a particular SaaS company’s contract available for download on the Internet.
In these cases, which are the norm rather than the exception, I often encounter significant push-back when I first suggest to them that they are approaching the SaaS contract drafting process entirely the wrong way. I always explain that a well-drafted SaaS contract should be tailored to their specific business model, and then I proceed to ask them a number of questions about their business model, which they generally aren’t prepared to answer. They often then proceed to get frustrated by all the questions about their business, when all they are actually looking for is the “right” contract template.
If you are in the SaaS industry and have created your customer contract in a similar fashion, or committed the other common software contracting “sin” of caving into pressure exerted by a potential customer and just agreed to their standard agreement terms because you wanted to close a deal with them, then you may want to consider the example of recent litigation against an industry leader, which adopted contract language which was then alleged not to match the company’s business practices.
The litigation at issue involves class action suits against the McAfee brand security software: Williamson v. McAfee, Inc., No. 5:14cv00158 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) and Kirby v. McAfee, Inc., No. 5:14cv02475 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2014). Both cases focus on the company’s business practices surrounding its use of automatic renewal clauses–a standard practice widely adopted throughout the SaaS industry. The litigation is ongoing: while the court granted final approval of a settlement in both cases, an appeal has been filed. (See posted notice).
The particular contract clause at issue in the Williamson case is a common clause routinely included in SaaS contracts that stated at autorenewal customers would be charged the “then-current” price for the product. However, the Williamson complaint alleged that the actual practice of the company was to charge customers upon autorenewal a higher price for the product than the price that the customer could have purchased the product for elsewhere.
The particular contract clauses at issue in the Kirby case stated that customer would be automatically enrolled in the autorenewal program and that a customer’s credit or debit card could be charged at autorenewal even after it had expired. The Kirby complaint alleged that the actual practice of the company was to import into its billing system updated customer credit or debit card information provided by Visa or MasterCard rather than procuring a new authorization from client when the prior authorization became invalid, and to charge the customer at autorenewal at a higher price than originally paid without the customer’s express consent.
While there are a number of allegations made against McAfee in these class action suits, a fundamental problem alleged was that the terms of service binding the customer did not match the company’s actual business practices, and that the customer did not provide consent to the company’s actual autorenewal practices.
While these particular suits were filed against McAfee, the business practices alleged in these cases are perhaps the current standard of conduct for today’s software industry. Furthermore, I would argue that more often than not terms of service are adopted by companies without any consideration whatsoever of the actual technology and business model for the software or SaaS product, so it is probably rare for the terms of service to match the company’s actual business practices. Thus, it is my assertion that these cases provide an excellent primer of the risks of adopting terms of service that do not match the actual practices of the business. It’s still not clear what the ultimate price tag on this matter will reach on the part of the company, but it’s clear it will be multiple millions of dollars in costs and expenses.
Moreover, these cases demonstrate the importance of consent to having an effective autorenewal clause. State laws applicable to these cases did require the procurement of clear and conspicuous consent to autorenewal, which McAfee is alleged not to have had in these particular sets of facts. Obviously, any deficiency with consent could have easily been addressed through the adoption of better business practices and terms that would demonstrate clear customer consent in compliance with applicable state laws.
The bottom line is that terms of service should not be adopted by a SaaS company without a thorough consideration of the technology, the business model, and the business practices of the company. Even common business concepts like autorenewal accepted across the board within the industry may lead to costly lawsuits if insufficient consideration of business practices is contemplated in conjunction with the drafting of terms of service.
Posted in Prinz Law Blog | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017If your software company is like most, you have probably spent little or no time contemplating what needs to be in your company’s privacy policy. In fact, what your company is currently calling its privacy policy was likely copied from a third party website years ago and never given much thought since. Meanwhile, your company is likely collecting and aggregating user data and looking for new opportunities to monetize it. Sound familiar?
Well, if this is your company’s situation, you may want to rethink how you are operating in light of recent enforcement action by the FTC on corporate data collection practices.
On February 6, 2017, the FTC announced that VIZIO, Inc. had agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle charges by the FTC and Office of the New Jersey Attorney General that it installed software on its TVs to collect data regarding consumer viewing without their knowledge or consent. In its complaint against VIZIO, the FTC alleged that VIZIO had manufactured televisions that continuously tracked consumer viewing on the television and transmitted this information back to VIZIO, and also had remotely installed the same proprietary software on previously sold televisions. In addition to collecting information about consumer viewing, the FTC alleged in its complaint that the software had collected information about the television, IP address, wired and wireless MAC addresses, WiFi signal strength, and nearby WiFi access points. The FTC further alleged in its complaint that VIZIO had then entered into third party contracts to sell the data collected to third parties for the purpose of measuring the audience, analyzing advertising effectiveness, and targeting advertising to particular consumers. While VIZIO’s contracts had provided only aggregate data to the third parties, those contracts did provide segmented demographic information by sex, age, income marital status, household size, education, home information, and household value. According to the FTC Complaint, VIZIO did make a privacy policy available on its website, but the only onscreen notifications provided to consumers were vague and timed out after 30 seconds, never sufficiently informing consumers as to VIZIO’s data collection practices with the software installed on their televisions. The FTC alleged that VIZIO’s actions in deceptively omitting material facts constituted deceptive acts or unfair practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.
In the stipulated order, VIZIO was ordered to take all the following actions before collecting any further data from consumers:
- Prominently disclose to consumers “separate and apart” from the privacy policy specifics on the data to be collected, what would be shared with third parties, the categories of third parties who would receive the data, and the purpose for which the third parties would receive the data.
- Obtain affirmative express consent from consumers at the time of disclosure and upon any material changes.
- Provide instructions at the time of obtaining consent to how consumers may revoke consent.
The stipulated order then gave specific guidelines on what would constitute “prominent” disclosure
The stipulated order also required the destruction of the previously collected data, the mandated creation of an internal privacy program meeting certain requirements, and third party oversight going forward regarding the privacy controls in place at the company.
Clearly, the FTC intended to send a message to the software industry about the collection of consumer data in the case of this particular enforcement action.
However, the FTC’s recent enforcement activities against software companies did not end with VIZIO. In a separate statement, the FTC announced settlements with three other companies in the industry over allegations that they had made deceptive statements in their privacy policies about their participation in an international privacy program. The companies charged in those cases were, Sentinel Labs, Inc., a software company providing endpoint protection software to enterprise customers; SpyChatter, Inc., a company marketing a private messaging app; and Vir2us, Inc., a distributor of cybersecurity software. The FTC alleged in each complaint that the companies violated the FTC Act by making deceptive statements about their participation in privacy programs. Attached are the complaints against Sentinel Labs, SpyChatter, and Vir2us. In these cases, the proposed settlements merely prohibited the companies from making further misrepresentations about their participation in third party privacy or security programs, but are not final orders and still subject to possible amendment.
What conclusions should you as a software company take away from the FTC’s recent enforcement activities against software companies? Clearly, the FTC is cognizant of the trends in the software industry to monetize data collected from software, to adopt privacy policies without actually customizing them to the practices of their particular company, and to bury privacy notices on websites without actually obtaining clear end user consent to actual business data collection practices. So, if your company is like most in this space, you are on notice that your practices need to change. Your privacy policy needs to be customized to the business practices of your particular company, which means that you actually need to take the time to consider each and every piece of information that you are collecting from the public and disclose what you are doing with it. If your customers expect you to be a part of an international privacy program before they do business with you, you need to actually take the steps requirement to receive the appropriate certification from that organization before you advise consumers and the public that you are a member. And if your software collects information, you need to make sure that not only your customers but also the parties from whom the information is collected have given their clear consent to your collection practices. A privacy policy buried in your website is probably not sufficient to cover you legally.
If you do not change your privacy practices, you are on notice that you may soon be hearing from the FTC.
Posted in Prinz Law Blog | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017If your company is like most and you have given little or no thought to your company’s privacy policy while also collecting data and looking for ways to monetize it, then you may want to rethink how you are operating in light of recent enforcement actions by the FTC in the user data space. The Silicon Valley Software Law Blog addressed these developments in the following blogpost:
http://www.siliconvalleysoftwarelaw.com/recent-ftc-enforcement-actions-should-serve-as-warning-to-software-industry-about-privacy-practices/
Tags: Atlanta HaaS attorney, Atlanta HaaS law firm, Atlanta HaaS lawyer, Atlanta hardware attorney, Atlanta hardware law firm, Atlanta hardware lawyer, atlanta privacy attorney, atlanta privacy law firm, atlanta privacy lawyer, Atlanta SaaS attorney, Atlanta SaaS law firm, Atlanta SaaS lawyer, atlanta software attorney, atlanta software law firm, atlanta software lawyer, Federal Trade Commission, FTC, HaaS attorney, HaaS law firm, HaaS lawyer, hardware attorney, hardware law firm, hardware lawyer, Los Angeles HaaS attorney, Los Angeles HaaS law firm, Los Angeles HaaS lawyer, Los Angeles hardware attorney, Los Angeles hardware law firm, Los Angeles hardware lawyer, los angeles privacy attorney, los angeles privacy law firm, los angeles privacy lawyer, Los Angeles SaaS attorney, Los Angeles SaaS law firm, Los Angeles SaaS lawyer, los angeles software attorney, los angeles software law firm, los angeles software lawyer, New Jersey Attorney General, Orange County HaaS attorney, Orange County HaaS law firm, Orange County HaaS lawyer, Orange County hardware attorney, Orange County hardware law firm, Orange County hardware lawyer, orange county privacy attorney, orange county privacy law firm, orange county privacy lawyer, Orange County SaaS law firm, Orange County SaaS lawyer Orange County SaaS attorney, orange county software attorney, orange county software law firm, orange county software lawyer, privacy attorney, privacy law firm, privacy lawyer, privacy policy, SaaS attorney, SaaS law firm, SaaS lawyer, San Diego HaaS attorney, San Diego HaaS law firm, San Diego HaaS lawyer, San Diego hardware attorney, San Diego hardware law firm, San Diego hardware lawyer, san diego privacy attorney, san diego privacy law firm, san diego privacy lawyer, San Diego SaaS attorney, San Diego SaaS law firm, San Diego SaaS lawyer, san diego software attorney, san diego software law firm, san diego software lawyer, San Jose HaaS attorney, San Jose HaaS law firm, San Jose HaaS lawyer, San Jose hardware attorney, San Jose hardware law firm, San Jose hardware lawyer, san jose privacy attorney, san jose privacy law firm, san jose privacy lawyer, san jose SaaS attorney, San Jose SaaS law firm, san jose SaaS lawyer, san jose software attorney, san jose software law firm, san jose software lawyer, Sentinel Labs, Silicon Valley HaaS attorney, Silicon Valley HaaS law firm, Silicon Valley HaaS lawyer, Silicon Valley hardware attorney, Silicon Valley hardware law firm, Silicon Valley hardware lawyer, silicon valley privacy attorney, silicon valley privacy law firm, silicon valley privacy lawyer, Silicon Valley SaaS attorney, Silicon Valley SaaS law firm, silicon valley SaaS lawyer, silicon valley software attorney, silicon valley software law firm, silicon valley software lawyer, software attorney, software law firm, software lawyer, SpyChatter, Vir2us, VIZIO
Posted in Prinz Law Blog | Comments Off on Recent FTC Enforcement Actions Should Serve as a Warning to Software Industry Regarding Privacy Practices
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017Tags: Atlanta SaaS contracts lawyer, Atlanta SaaS lawyer, Best Practices for Drafting SaaS Contracts that Reduce the Customer Sales Cycle & Avoid Disputes, disputes with SaaS customers, drafting problems in SaaS contracts, effective SaaS customer contract, IP licensing, Kristie Prinz, Los Angeles SaaS contracts lawyer, Los Angeles SaaS lawyer, Orange County SaaS contracts lawyer, Orange County SaaS lawyer, San Diego SaaS contracts lawyer, San Diego SaaS lawyer, San Jose SaaS contracts lawyer, san jose SaaS lawyer, Silicon Valley SaaS contracts lawyer, silicon valley SaaS lawyer, technology transactions, The Prinz Law Office
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Silicon Valley Software Lawyer Kristie Prinz to Speak at Upcoming Webinar on SaaS Contracts
| The Prinz Law Office | Silicon Valley Office Address •84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 788, San Jose, CA 95113 • Firm Mailing Address: 117 Bernal Rd., Suite 70-110, San Jose, CA 95119 •408.884.2854 | Orange County 949.284.6884 | San Diego ▪619.881.0424 | Tel: 1.800.884.2124 |