Skip to content

About us

eCounsel group

A boutique firm with unparalleled expertise in business and technology. We have good command of industrial ecology and legal practice, and have undertaken highly regarded cases. Because the small business scope, we pay more emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency, and choose clients with deliberation. The managing partner not only has extensive experiences in various legal issues more over than 20 years, but invests and manages several technology companies. In addition, he always checks each case rigorously. Clients’ business objectives are our primary focus. To achieve the same in the most cost-effective fashion trumps all seemingly sophisticated legal discussions.

California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 - The War Has just Begun

2018 - 07 - 06

California lawmakers passed a new privacy bill last thursday ( 6/29), which gives state residents more control over the information that businesses collect on them and in addition, penalise businesses that do not comply. It is the first law of its kind in the United States.

The so-called California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (AB 375) gives Californians the right to see what information businesses collect on them, get access to information on the types of companies their data has been sold to, and request businesses to stop selling that information to third parties. This privacy act is similar to the new EU General Data Protection Regulation, but with crucial additions. Under the GDPR protections, businesses are required to get users’ permissions prior to collecting and storing their data. However, through opt-in pop-ups designed by these companies, consumers don’t really have a choice but to give consent, in order to use these services. In contrast, the Californian bill would create the  “Spotify exception”, “which allows companies to offer different services or rates to consumers based on the information they provide—for instance, a free product based on advertising. But, the bill states, the difference must be “reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.”

Experts in this field believe that the law will have tremendous impacts and potentially set standards for states across the nation. However, between companies and consumers, the storm of conflicts might just be coming.

Sources:California Unanimously Passes Historic Privacy BillCalifornia just passed one of the toughest data privacy laws in the country

 

Recommended article 

Video Streaming:

影音串流,這種仗永遠都在打。大咖有 Amazon, Apple, Netflix,小的有 Spotify, KKBOX。玩到 video 量級的,就等於跳了一座山,但這種搶內容授權的競賽本質,是一樣的。 2010年,Netflix 和 Epix(派拉蒙和 MGM 以及 Lions Gate 的合資公司,有多猛你就知道了)簽了張十億美元的獨家授權,2012年到期,所以 Epix 當年就上了 Amazon。 結果,Netflix CCO (Chief Content Officer) 說 “we have decided not to renew our agreement in the US…

Sarbanes-Oxley Act

From 2001 to 2002, after a series of false financial reporting and bankruptcy of many large corporations, to relieve the untrusting sentiment and pressure toward capital markets, U.S government drafted and passed a new version of…

Lack of Compalince Policy in Public Traded Companies

Besides financial sectors, other public traded companies are facing more serious problems. 除了金融相關產業的規範問題之外,其他公開發行公司所面臨的問題更加嚴重,公開發行公司在法令遵循此方面僅有「公開發行公司建立內部控制制度處理準則」當中有稍微提到法令遵循是內部控制的目標之一1,以及在內控自評的時候也必須評估公司是否已經遵循法令2,但是對於法令遵循計畫要如何實施卻是完全沒有相關的細節,與金融相關產業「稍微具體」的規範相較更是令企業無所適從。 目前我國各公開發行公司於內部控制中有關「法令遵循」風險、控制點及內部控制制度之設計,多屬證券商與簽證會計師所提供,其中在關於法令遵循之控制點上最常見的是以「本公司聘有法律顧問3,遇有法律問題時即應請教法律顧問」等之類似字眼來表示已經確保公司法令之遵循。 似乎言之成理,有法律問爭議可能時請教法律顧問,天經地義,但是這裡面忽略了一個可能的問題那就是這根本就是類似套套邏輯的說法4,公司在不知道某項法令存在時要如何察覺法律問題並請教法律顧問?外加法律規定經常改變,連專業之律師也未必能確定其在當下知曉每一項法令的最新規定,遑論非法律專業的企業經營階層了。由此可見,實務上關於法令遵循計畫之作法存有根本上的瑕疵!有效法令遵循計畫應該要設計一些控制點,與內控制度一樣的地方在於其有效性必須立基在「找出必要的控制點」並且使把守控制點之人具備達到其控制目的之能力。比方說今天規定由公司的副總經理來審核,到了他這裡的簽呈之內容是否需要作適法性之判斷而去請教法律顧問,由於該副總經理對於其簽呈所涉之內容,根本不了解法律對於其內容有無作出相關之規定,不可能知道是否要去請教法律顧問,可見這不會是有效的控制點,更何況許多其他企業內部事項根本不會簽呈到副總經理這裡來。 最重要的問題就是要如何幫企業找出真正有效的「法令遵循控制點」,正如同建立層層的關卡盡力避免企業之商業行為違反法律規定。但是這個關卡的設計與執行必須要真正有效才行,本書就是要替企業設計一套易於執行、以「文件管理」為核心控制點之「法令遵循計畫」。 參考資料: 1. 參公開發行公司建立內部控制制度處理準則第3 條。 2. 參公開發行公司建立內部控制制度處理準則第23條。 3. 請參劉立恩律師等,建構有效法令遵循制度之核心考量。 4. 套套邏輯在哲學上就是指在邏輯上永遠是「真」的那些句子,通常是一些沒有訊息內容的句子卻被拿來當作有訊息內容之陳述,通常我們聽到這些句子會認為這是沒有實質意義的,舉例來說,「如果這裡是台灣,那麼這裡是台灣」、「台灣位於大陸的東南方或是台灣不位於大陸的東南方」兩句話都是套套邏輯,他們在邏輯上為「真」沒有錯,但是人們聽起來就像是沒有意義的話。