Tech Lobbying Seen Pushing for Anti-SLAPP, Data Breach Laws

There’s concern the interests of tech companies might usurp those of the broader public, with the firms being able to contribute directly to political campaigns, said some public interest groups. A lobbyist for Snapchat, a social media company that rejected a buyout bid from Facebook, disclosed the new client in a registration form filed with the Senate Jan. 1 (WID Jan 7 p7), after a data breach of 4.6 million users (WID Jan 6 p1). Yelp, a user-generated review site, filed a statement of PAC organization with the Federal Election Commission Dec. 31 (WID Jan 6 p8).

Internet and tech interests are one of “few sectors showing a continual increase in the amount of money they spend lobbying,” said Sarah Bryner, Center for Responsive Politics research director. In 1998, lobbying expenditures for the “computers/Internet” category were just under $40 million annually, according to research posted at OpenSecrets.org, the center’s website (http://bit.ly/1cWDnni). By 2012, spending was about $130 million, said the research. But “I don’t see Yelp or Snapchat being particularly large lobbying clients,” said Bryner. She compared Yelp and Snapchat to Twitter, which began “lobbying late, and relatively quietly,” she said. “Neither is as large as Facebook, which is a major client [of lobbying firms], and so I'd expect them to be clients of small-middling size.”

Outside lobbyist Heather Podesta, who said she just took on Snapchat as a client, was described by Bryner as a “Washington power-player and one of the top lobbyist donors” for Democrats. Laurent Crenshaw, Yelp’s new lobbyist and former aide to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., was a “smart choice” for the company to employ, said Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation intellectual property director.

Yelp plans to emphasize issues of “patent trolls,” advancing anti-SLAPP legislation and protecting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, said a spokeswoman. She said the section allows user-generated content “sites like Yelp to exist and provide our service to consumers and small businesses without the threat of cost-prohibitive litigation over user content.” Snapchat had no comment. Some states have anti-SLAPP laws to protect Web users from intimidation by companies which use the threat of libel or defamation to stop what some see as legitimate speech.

It’s a “really important and positive development” for tech companies to have a bigger presence in “influencing copyright policy,” said McSherry. Her “one worry” is that “tech companies could come to be stand-ins” for the public and Internet users at large. “With SOPA and PIPA, there was this notion that if Hollywood and Silicon Valley could make a deal,” all would be well, which “wasn’t true,” she said of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act. To protest SOPA and PIPA, websites blacked themselves out in 2011, leading sponsors to abandon the bills. “The interests of the general public and Internet users” are not always parallel with the “interests of technology companies, big and small,” said McSherry. “Sometimes they might be, sometimes they won’t be."

"Snapchat is undoubtedly concerned about its data breach, and the potential for federal legislation to cover data spills,” said Derek Bambauer, a University of Arizona law professor specializing in Internet law and intellectual property. Snapchat may also want a “voice in the emerging debate over revenge porn,” he said. Bambauer believes Snapchat wants to be involved in the revenge porn conversation “since it is both a potential technological tool to reduce the problem (though not eliminate it), and a potential target of liability,” if someone hacked explicit images, he said by email.

"It’s very important that the voices of Google and Yelp and Snapchat aren’t taken as proxy for the voices of the Internet,” said McSherry. The debate over copyright policy should “include everybody and not just the people who can afford to pay lobbyists,” she said. Tech companies, like Yelp and Snapchat, are a “little quicker” to “establish a presence in D.C.,” said McSherry. “They can’t just ignore D.C. until they're forced to do something about it.” Initially, Silicon Valley and other tech companies were reluctant to invest their resources in Washington, McSherry said. That shifted “pretty dramatically around the SOPA/PIPA battle,” especially for Google, she said.

"Not engaging in D.C. is very risky,” said Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, an attorney at Monument Policy Group, with clients including Microsoft, LinkedIn and the Entertainment Software Association. “More and more” tech companies are “coming to D.C. and realizing that they need to engage and be part of the process, rather than have rules and laws dictated to them that don’t make sense in terms of innovation,” she said. The “hard part” about tech issues is that what seems like an “innocuous rule or regulation on one issue could adversely impact other issues,” said Herrera-Flanigan. “That’s part of the challenge, helping members and policy makers understand that.”

Congress wants to hear directly from “companies that have products on the market” and can “speak more directly on what the impact of public policy is on how they do business,” said Bambauer, instead of companies joining associations. If the technology companies aren’t in Washington, others interests will be, he said. “If you're not here making the case that online services deserve protection, that consumers benefit from them, other people who argue against you are here."

Yelp is backing anti-SLAPP bills at the federal level, said the company’s spokeswoman. Pursuing issues salient to Yelp’s business, like anti-SLAPP legislation, “makes sense,” said Herrera-Flanigan. “Laws have to make sure they don’t live in a brick-and-mortar world and adversely affect what’s happening on the Internet.”