The Olympics brand police are out in full force with the most stringent brand restrictions ever seen in the Games. LOCOG, the event organisers, have put them in place to help protect the brands and broadcasters that have paid for it, but the Guardian reports that many are worried that it will limit the economic benefits of the event.
Bespoke legislation such as this is required by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as part of a country’s bid for the games. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act was actually passed in 2006 but is coming to the forefront now as UK businesses seek to draw people in for the event. Not only is the Olympic logo and much of the terminology restricted, such as “Olympics”, “Games”, and “London 2012″, but the brand police have the power to do things like tape over manufacturers’ logos in the Olympic Village bathrooms and fine pub landlords for posting signs which say things like “Come in to watch the London Games!”
The area that will undoubtedly cause the most confusion is the online space. In Beijing, sponsors had virtually no online presence, but this year, athletes will be given a comprehensive social media and blogging handbook which outlines what they can and can’t say online. Athletes will be stopped from posting tweets about non-sponsoring brands and theoretically, LOCOG could fine attendees for sharing photos of the event on Facebook.
Still, the complexities of the rules have many wondering if UK businesses, especially small ones, will shy away from talking about the Games altogether. Non-sponsoring brands are being forced to get expensive legal advice so they don’t cross the line and many small businesses simply don’t have the resources to do this. Time will only tell how thorough the Olympic brand police will actually be, but for now it’s probably best to be safe rather than sorry.
See the full story and key rules on Guardian.co.uk
Watch what you tweet. That’s one lesson that can be taken away from a recent court ruling which has awarded former New Zealand cricket captain, Chris Cairns, £90k in libel damages after he was accused of match-fixing on Twitter. The 24-word tweet was posted by Lalit Modi, the former chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL), the Twenty20 franchise in India. 
Online dating sites are a booming business in the US, with nearly 20% of Americans now meeting partners via the internet. But whilst it’s accepted that users might hide a few blemishes with a couple of retouched photos, should convicted sex offenders be able to keep their pasts hidden from view? A case last year against match.com has led to the site, along with other online dating services, to begin checking its clients against criminal databases. 
Consumers may now have to share the burden of policing the internet after TalkTalk and BT lost their recent bid to stop legislation designed to combat online piracy, The Independent reports. TalkTalk, BT and other UK internet service providers (ISPs) will now have to warn customers engaged in illegal file-sharing that they are infringing copyright, provide lists of alleged infringements, and shell out 25% of the costs of enforcing the new system. Many expect that the costs will ultimately be passed onto customers. 
Champion clay pigeon shooter and leading member of the Great Britain shooting team Nicola Heron has recently settled in a High Court libel case she filed against the sport’s governing body. Heron claimed that Terry Bobbett, the director of the sport’s governing body, wrote two defamatory emails about Heron which said she was both a bully and not to be trusted to communicate with the association’s staff members. 
If you’ve seen the commercials for the Siri function on Apple’s iPhone 4S which answers questions about current Paris weather and locates family members with just a few words, you might have thought it was the future of technology. It might very well be, but for some users, the feature isn’t quite up to snuff. 
Already having to pay out for last year’s huge PlayStation Network breach, Sony is in the spotlight again after the entirety of Michael Jackson’s back catalogue was stolen from the company by hackers. The cyber attack saw the illegal download of around 50,000 music files belonging to the singer, including some unreleased material. The files were estimated at around £160m making this the biggest attack on a music company ever. 
Since 2004, the California Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has required online services that collect certain types of data from Californian users to post a privacy policy which descibes how the information will be used. If they collect this data, Apps fall under this category, but a recent report has found that only about 5% have the appropriate privacy policies in place. 
What exactly is Twitter? Well, that depends. In a recent Australian court battle concerning the social networking giant, there is some question as to whether Twitter is akin to a publisher of information, like a newspaper, or whether it’s more like a phone company which simply allows the transmission of messages. It’s no doubt a combination of the two, but with the legal landscape around social networking sites struggling to keep up with their enigmatic nature, it means there’s no clear answer when it comes to lawsuits. 
Netflix will pay out $9m to settle a privacy lawsuit, reports PaidContent.org. Claimants have accused the movie rental and streaming company of illegally retaining customers’ rental histories. This violates California consumer laws and the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a 1988 law which originally applied to videocassettes. 