Tag Archives: Cyber Attorney

Texas Computer Crimes

Texas Computer Crime Laws

TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

CHAPTER 33. COMPUTER CRIMES

Sec. 33.01.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:

(1)  “Access” means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve or intercept data from, alter data or computer software in, or otherwise make use of any resource of a computer, computer network, computer program, or computer system.

(2)  “Aggregate amount” means the amount of:

(A)  any direct or indirect loss incurred by a victim, including the value of money, property, or service stolen or rendered unrecoverable by the offense; or

(B)  any expenditure required by the victim to verify that a computer, computer network, computer program, or computer system was not altered, acquired, damaged, deleted, or disrupted by the offense.

(3)  “Communications common carrier” means a person who owns or operates a telephone system in this state that includes equipment or facilities for the conveyance, transmission, or reception of communications and who receives compensation from persons who use that system.

(4)  “Computer” means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high-speed data processing device that performs logical, arithmetic, or memory functions by the manipulations of electronic or magnetic impulses and includes all input, output, processing, storage, or communication facilities that are connected or related to the device.

(5)  “Computer network” means the interconnection of two or more computers or computer systems by satellite, microwave, line, or other communication medium with the capability to transmit information among the computers.

(6)  “Computer program” means an ordered set of data representing coded instructions or statements that when executed by a computer cause the computer to process data or perform specific functions.

(7)  “Computer services” means the product of the use of a computer, the information stored in the computer, or the personnel supporting the computer, including computer time, data processing, and storage functions.

(8)  “Computer system” means any combination of a computer or computer network with the documentation, computer software, or physical facilities supporting the computer or computer network.

(9)  “Computer software” means a set of computer programs, procedures, and associated documentation related to the operation of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(10)  “Computer virus” means an unwanted computer program or other set of instructions inserted into a computer’s memory, operating system, or program that is specifically constructed with the ability to replicate itself or to affect the other programs or files in the computer by attaching a copy of the unwanted program or other set of instructions to one or more computer programs or files.

(11)  “Data” means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions that is being prepared or has been prepared in a formalized manner and is intended to be stored or processed, is being stored or processed, or has been stored or processed in a computer. Data may be embodied in any form, including but not limited to computer printouts, magnetic storage media, laser storage media, and punchcards, or may be stored internally in the memory of the computer.

(12)  “Effective consent” includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:

(A)  induced by deception, as defined by Section 31.01, or induced by coercion;

(B)  given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;

(C)  given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable property dispositions;

(D)  given solely to detect the commission of an offense; or

(E)  used for a purpose other than that for which the consent was given.

(13)  “Electric utility” has the meaning assigned by Section 31.002, Utilities Code.

(14)  “Harm” includes partial or total alteration, damage, or erasure of stored data, interruption of computer services, introduction of a computer virus, or any other loss, disadvantage, or injury that might reasonably be suffered as a result of the actor’s conduct.

(15)  “Owner” means a person who:

(A)  has title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, or a greater right to possession of the property than the actor;

(B)  has the right to restrict access to the property; or

(C)  is the licensee of data or computer software.

(16)  “Property” means:

(A)  tangible or intangible personal property including a computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, or data; or

(B)  the use of a computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, or data.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 600, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 306, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 306, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 18.44, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Sec. 33.02.  BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.

(b)  An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless in committing the offense the actor knowingly obtains a benefit, defrauds or harms another, or alters, damages, or deletes property, in which event the offense is:

(1)  a Class A misdemeanor if the aggregate amount involved is less than $1,500;

(2)  a state jail felony if:

(A)  the aggregate amount involved is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000; or

(B)  the aggregate amount involved is less than $1,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of an offense under this chapter;

(3)  a felony of the third degree if the aggregate amount involved is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;

(4)  a felony of the second degree if the aggregate amount involved is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or

(5)  a felony of the first degree if the aggregate amount involved is $200,000 or more.

(c)  When benefits are obtained, a victim is defrauded or harmed, or property is altered, damaged, or deleted in violation of this section, whether or not in a single incident, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the value of the benefits obtained and of the losses incurred because of the fraud, harm, or alteration, damage, or deletion of property may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.

(d)  A person who his subject to prosecution under this section and any other section of this code may be prosecuted under either or both sections.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 600, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 306, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 306, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1411, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Sec. 33.021.  ONLINE SOLICITATION OF A MINOR.  (a)  In this section:

(1)  “Minor” means:

(A)  an individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age; or

(B)  an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.

(2)  “Sexual contact,” “sexual intercourse,” and “deviate sexual intercourse” have the meanings assigned by Section 21.01.

(3)  “Sexually explicit” means any communication, language, or material, including a photographic or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25.

(b)  A person who is 17 years of age or older commits an offense if, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally:

(1)  communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor;  or

(2)  distributes sexually explicit material to a minor.

(c)  A person commits an offense if the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the actor or another person.

(d)  It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that:

(1)  the meeting did not occur;

(2)  the actor did not intend for the meeting to occur; or

(3)  the actor was engaged in a fantasy at the time of commission of the offense.

(e)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the time conduct described by Subsection (b) or (c) was committed:

(1)  the actor was married to the minor; or

(2)  the actor was not more than three years older than the minor and the minor consented to the conduct.

(f)  An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if the minor is younger than 14 years of age or is an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.  An offense under Subsection (c) is a felony of the second degree.

(g)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1273, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 610, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 7, eff. September 1, 2007.

Sec. 33.03.  DEFENSES.  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 33.02 that the actor was an officer, employee, or agent of a communications common carrier or electric utility and committed the proscribed act or acts in the course of employment while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the communications common carrier or electric utility.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 600, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 33.04 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 33.04.  ASSISTANCE BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.  The attorney general, if requested to do so by a prosecuting attorney, may assist the prosecuting attorney in the investigation or prosecution of an offense under this chapter or of any other offense involving the use of a computer.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 600, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 33.05 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 33.05.  TAMPERING WITH DIRECT RECORDING ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE.  (a)  In this section:

(1)  “Direct recording electronic voting machine” has the meaning assigned by Section 121.003, Election Code.

(2)  “Measure” has the meaning assigned by Section 1.005, Election Code.

(b)  A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, computer program, computer software, or computer system that is a part of a voting system that uses direct recording electronic voting machines and by means of that access:

(1)  prevents a person from lawfully casting a vote;

(2)  changes a lawfully cast vote;

(3)  prevents a lawfully cast vote from being counted; or

(4)  causes a vote that was not lawfully cast to be counted.

(c)  An offense under this section does not require that the votes as affected by the person’s actions described by Subsection (b) actually be the votes used in the official determination of the outcome of the election.

(d)  An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(e)  Notwithstanding Section 15.01(d), an offense under Section 15.01(a) is a felony of the third degree if the offense the actor intends to commit is an offense under this section.

(f)  With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to investigate or prosecute an offense under this section.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 470, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

Amended by:

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 503, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

Sec. 33.07.  ONLINE HARASSMENT.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person to create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial social networking site:

(1)  without obtaining the other person’s consent; and

(2)  with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person.

(b)  A person commits an offense if the person sends an electronic mail, instant message, text message, or similar communication that references a name, domain address, phone number, or other item of identifying information belonging to any person:

(1)  without obtaining the other person’s consent;

(2)  with the intent to cause a recipient of the communication to reasonably believe that the other person authorized or transmitted the communication; and

(3)  with the intent to harm or defraud any person.

(c)  An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree.  An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the actor commits the offense with the intent to solicit a response by emergency personnel.

(d)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.

(e)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor is any of the following entities or that the actor’s conduct consisted solely of action taken as an employee of any of the following entities:

(1)  a commercial social networking site;

(2)  an Internet service provider;

(3)  an interactive computer service, as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 230;

(4)  a telecommunications provider, as defined by Section 51.002, Utilities Code; or

(5)  a video service provider or cable service provider, as defined by Section 66.002, Utilities Code.

(f)  In this section:

(1)  “Commercial social networking site” means any business, organization, or other similar entity operating a website that permits persons to become registered users for the purpose of establishing personal relationships with other users through direct or real-time communication with other users or the creation of web pages or profiles available to the public or to other users.  The term does not include an electronic mail program or a message board program.

(2)  “Identifying information” has the meaning assigned by Section 32.51.

Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 911, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

Trademark Infringement in Keyword Search Advertisement

Trademark Infringement in Keyword Search Advertisement

Web searches are the primary method used for finding goods and services on the Internet.  Businesses frequently compete for the best search engine positions.  Some may try to use a competitor’s name or the name of the competitor’s product as a keyword for keyword search advertisement purposes.  As your online trademark infringement lawyers, we provide you advice on how to protect your Intellectual Property against all Internet based trademark infringement, particularly trademark infringement arising from a keyword search advertisement campaign.

Can a business use its competitor’s name and/or trademark as a search keyword without engaging in online trademark infringement?

A trademark infringement lawyer with our firm will assist you in determining whether a business’ use of a trademark, trade name, or products as a search engine keyword qualifies as Internet trademark infringement. We diligently assist our clients in the prosecution of those who infringe on your trademarks online.

If you have been accused of Internet trademark infringement or if your website has been removed from search engine listings based on a claim of trademark infringement, we can assist you in protecting your rights against the claims asserted by a competitor, perhaps through a cease and desist letter by an intellectual property and trademark infringement attorney or through formal legal action.  It is our job to explain the benefits and drawbacks of specific strategies, it is yours to decide which one to choose, based on your needs, the costs of each alternative, and a sound risk/reward analysis.

Cyber Squatting

Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting occurs when the cybersquatter registers a domain name in bad faith in violation of the rights of a trademark owner.  A domain name infringement and trademark infringement attorney with our firm is an expert in obtaining or recovering domain names from cybersquatters through the application of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).

The ACPA protects trademark owners from Internet trademark infringement. To maintain legal action under the ACPA, the complaining party must show that the domain registrant had a bad faith intent to profit from the trademark owner’s trademark and that the registrant registered or used a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.

Whether a cybersquatter has registered a domain name containing your trademark or whether you are accused of being a cybersquatter, our domain name registration lawyers and cybersquatting attorneys are prepared to defend your rights, protect your trademark, and assist you with all your Internet Law, Internet Trademark Infringement Law, or Domain Name Law issues.

Trademark Infringement in Meta-tags

Website Meta tag Trademark Infringement

Businesses frequently compete for the best search engine positions.  Some may try to use a competitor’s name or the name of the competitor’s product as a website meta tag.  As your online trademark infringement lawyers, we provide you advice on how to protect your Intellectual Property against all Internet based trademark infringement, particularly trademark infringement arising from meta tag use.

Does the use of another’s trademark as a meta tag constitute trademark infringement?

A trademark infringement lawyer with our firm will assist you in evaluating the scenario to determine whether a use of a trademark in Internet meta-tags qualifies as trademark infringement and how to address this potential trademark infringement situation to properly protect your Intellectual Property rights. We expertly and diligently prosecute those who infringe on your trademarks online.

If you have been accused of Internet trademark infringement or if your website has been removed from search engine listings based on a claim of trademark infringement, we can assist you in protecting your rights against the claims asserted by a competitor, perhaps through a cease and desist letter from an intellectual property and trademark infringement attorney.

Internet Trial Attorney

An Internet Law pioneer with a proven record, Domingo J. Rivera was the first attorney in the United States to win a complex jury trial involving Federal Copyright Infringement, music piracy criminal allegations.

The importance of having a computer expert as your Internet trial attorney

During a cyber trial, whether related to copyright infringement, trademark infringement, domain name dispute, Internet defamation, or a computer crime trial, it is extremely important to have an attorney who has not only legal subject matter knowledge, but is also experienced in computer technology and the technical concepts related to the Internet.  We recently completed a long and complex cyber crime trial. We were fully equipped to expertly handle the criminal defense aspects of the case, we knew the law, how to cross-examine witnesses, and how to establish reasonable doubt. However, during the trial, it was our technical knowledge that allowed us to provide a unique perspective to the evidence presented.

The evidence presented at trial contained technical details that only an attorney with Internet technology knowledge would have recognized.  Your Internet lawyer must not only be effective in arguing Internet law, but must have superior technical knowledge to recognize complex technical issues “on the spot.”

It takes a lot of finesse, patience, and competence to explain to effectively explain technical issues to the court. The typical non-technical attorney attempting to venture into Internet law may not understanding these technical concepts.  Our expertise includes technical degrees in Computer Engineering and years of Internet technology experience.

Contact an Internet lawyer

Cease and Desist Letter

Cease and Desist Notice

You may need an Internet lawyer to assist you with the preparation of a cease and desist letter when your business is the victim of Internet copyright infringement, Internet trademark infringement, Internet defamation, domain name legal issues, or other Internet law issues.

Your Internet business may need an effective cease and desist letter to prevent your competitors from copying the contents of your website in order to take advantage of the success of your online business…. or you may have received an Internet copyright infringement cease and desist notice from an Internet copyright infringement lawyer or Internet trademark infringement lawyer asking you for a significant amount of monetary damages. In addition the copyright infringement cease and desist notice written may contain threats indicating that your company will be the target of a copyright infringement lawsuit, and an injunction against Internet copyright infringement.  Our Internet lawyers can provide assistance in drafting an effective cease and desist notice or responding to a cease and desist notice.

Effective handling of the cease and desist letter may determine whether or not expensive court litigation will be necessary to resolve the legal dispute.

Contact an Internet Lawyer

Trademark

Trademark

A Trademark identifies your company’s goods from the goods of your competitors or other third parties. Trademark Registration allows you to keep your competitors from using your company or product name, symbol or design.

When you register a Trademark, you are legally presumed to be the owner of the mark and you can stop others from using a name that is confusingly similar to your trademark. Additionally, registration of your Trademark allows you to obtain up to three times the amount of your losses if you have to sue for infringement of your registered Trademark.  However, registration is not required in order for you to be able to maintain a cause of action for trademark infringement.

Internet trademark infringement occurs frequently in domain name registration, meta tags, and keyword search advertising. As your cyber trademark lawyer, we provide you advice on how to protect your trademark rights against Internet trademark infringement.  Some instances of Internet trademark infringement include:

Trademark Infringement in Domain Names, Cybersquatting, and Cyber-piracy

Trademark Infringement in Meta Tags

Trademark Infringement in Keyword Search Advertising

We are your Internet trademark infringement attorney, Internet trademark lawyer, Cybersquatting legal counsel, cyber-piracy legal adviser and trademark law professional.

Copyright

Copyright

A copyright is the legal protection for the artistic and literary work that you create. Copyrightable items include music, books, websites, graphics, poetry, stories, and software. Your copyrighted works may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or displayed without your consent.

Registration, although not required is advisable and important if you wish to protect your work. Copyright registration provides significant benefits, including evidence that you created your own works. It is significantly more difficult to maintain a legal action for copyright infringement when you have not obtained a copyright registration for your works and have to prove to a court that you actually created your own work.

Additionally, there are advantages in case you are faced with litigation. For example, if you are forced into litigation to protect your copyright rights, a court may award significant damages for copyright infringement, including statutory damages of up to $150,000, and reimbursement for your attorney’s fees and costs for the infringement of your copyright rights.  However, under U.S. Copyright Laws, you obtain a copyright to your works the moment your works are created and registration is not required to maintain a cause of action for trademark infringement.  If your copyright is not registered, you will need to prove actual damages, as opposed to the presumed statutory damages provided for works protected by a registered copyright.

Even if your website is not registered, your content is still protected under U.S. Copyright Laws and you can maintain an action for Internet copyright infringement. As you Internet copyright infringement attorney, we understand Internet copyright laws,  U.S. Copyright Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the application of copyright laws to Internet copyright matters.

Domingo Rivera

Domingo J. Rivera, Esq., JD, M.S., MBA, CISSP, GPEN, CEH, GSLC, GCIH, EIT

Legal Decision Highlights:

  • The first attorney in the United States to obtain a major victory after a jury trial against the FBI and the DOJ in an case involving criminal copyright infringement allegations.  The client was accused of being the leader of the world’s most prolific music piracy group.  The case began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and was decided in the USDC for the Southern District of Texas.
  • Has obtained Summary Judgment in Federal cases involving computer trespass including the first civil case based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act decided by the Arkansas Federal Court.
  • Has obtained Summary Judgment in Federal cases involving online defamation, trademark infringement, invasion of privacy.  Obtained recent Summary Judgment involving online defamation and trademark infringement in the USDC for the Middle District of Florida.
  • Has won cases involving Internet defamation in several State and Federal Court cases after hotly contested trials.
  • Has obtained injunctions against Internet defamation.  Injunctive relief is generally hard to obtain in Internet defamation cases because of Free Speech implications.
  • Regularly teaches CLEs to other attorneys on Internet law matters.
  • Has published scholarly articles in widely published legal publications regarding issues related to Internet law and Internet defamation.
  • Is one of the few attorneys holding Information Security Certifications, including the prestigious CISSP, GPEN, GCIH, GSLC, CEH.  Of those, is also one of the select few with vast experience defending highly sensitive computer networks.

Education Highlights:

Domingo J. Rivera earned a B.S. in Computer Engineering, M.S. in Information Technology (Virginia Tech), an MBA (Florida) with a specialty in Information Technology Management, and a Doctorate of Jurisprudence.  Domingo J. Rivera is also a registered Electrical Engineering E.I.T. in the State of Florida.

Information Technology and Cybersecurity Certifications:

Domingo Rivera has passed the Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) exam.  Additionally, he holds the following Cybersecurity Certifications:

RiveraAVMCerts2

With these cybersecurity certifications and experience in defending critical computer networks, you can count on Mr. Rivera to apply both legal and technical expertise to any technically complicated case. Whether the case may involve hacking (unauthorized access to computer systems), online defamation investigation, or legal compliance issues related cybersecurity policy, we can provide techno-legal expertise to any case related to technology.

Clearance:

Mr. Rivera maintains a TS/SCI Clearance.  Therefore, he may assist you with sensitive legal issues that may require meeting at a secure facility or understanding the full scope of the situation.  His legal counsel has proven valuable to clients in need of competent and fully informed advice for sensitive matters.

Internet Privacy

Internet Privacy

In the Internet age, the right to privacy has taken many twists and turns. Some states have enacted statutes criminalizing computer invasion of privacy.

In a worldwide market, how can the protections against the appropriation of name and likeness, online defamation, intrusion into seclusion, false light in the public eye, and public disclosure of private facts be preserved?  In fact, can you comfortably say that as you read this page there is no spyware program which is lodged deep within your system tracking your every move? Internet privacy is a complex legal area and requires the knowledge that our Internet privacy attorneys can provide.

As an example, take email privacy at your place of employment:

Some courts have held that Your employer can lie to you about reading your emails… and then fire you for relying on these lies! Most employees probably know that the emails sent from their work email accounts are probably being monitored.

However, what if your employer repeatedly assures you that all e-mail communications would remain confidential and privileged? What if your employer tells you that e-mail communications could not be intercepted and used against you as grounds for termination or reprimand? Can your employer still intercept your emails, read them, and then fire you for the contents…? The answer may surprise you… and make you realize that the assistance of an Internet Law attorney is paramount.

In Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (1996), Pillsbury maintained a company e-mail system which the employees used to communicate among themselves. Mr. Smyth was an employee of Pillsbury. Pillsbury assured Mr. Smyth as well as the other employees that all e-mail communications would remain confidential and privileged and that the e-mail communications could not be intercepted and used against the employees as grounds for termination or reprimand. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania surprisingly held that despite the assurances made by Pillsbury, its employees did not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor over the company e-mail system.” The Court went on to hold that no “reasonable person would consider the . . . interception of these communications to be a substantial and highly offensive invasion of his privacy.”

The Pillsbury case, although decided under Pennsylvania law and dating back to 1996, has been cited with approval by courts in other states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Oregon, and Texas.

Contact Us For a Free Internet Law Consultation