Minnesota Law Review

Branding Privacy

This Article focuses on the problem of the privacy lurch, defined as an abrupt change made to the way a company handles data about individuals. Two prominent examples include Google’s decision in early 2012 to tear down the walls that once separated data collected from its different services and Facebook’s decisions in 2009 and 2010 to expose more user profile information to the public web by default than it had in the past. Privacy lurches disrupt long-settled user expectations and undermine claims that companies protect privacy by providing notice and choice. They expose users to much more risk to their individual privacy than the users might have anticipated or desired, and they do so long after users stop paying attention to privacy policies. Given the special and significant problems associated with privacy lurches, this Article calls on regulators to seek creative solutions to address them.

For new solutions, we should look to trademarks and brands because the information qualities of trademarks can meet the notice deficiencies of a privacy lurch. The novel union of trademark and privacy law yields a new prescription called “branded privacy,” which would require every company that handles customer information to associate its trademark with a specified set of core privacy commitments. If a company someday decides to depart from its initial promises—for example, by embracing a new behavioral advertising business model—it may do so, but only under a new name. Under this rule, Facebook would have been allowed to make the switch it made from private to public, but only after it had changed the name of its service to something new, say “Facebook Public” or “Facebook Enhanced.” A close elaboration and evaluation of this solution reveals how well it strikes an appropriate balance between robust privacy protection and a dynamic, free market.


:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days