INTRODUCTION Toysmart.com is a company owned by Disney. It was found in 1999 and had been promoting, advertising and selling toys online since then. In 2000, the website announced that it was out of business, and inquired the help of a firm called The Recovery group for consultation in selling its assets. This is when in the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe, the advertisements began appearing that the website had volunteered to sell its customer’s personal information (consumers’ names, Addresses, billing information, and family information). The case renders a priceless tool for examining privacy issues in computing. It sets an example for other failing online companies that they must preserve the rights of their consumers even if …show more content…
Toysmart.com had violated this Act as they had a contest on their website where children could enter by sending their name and age and if the child won a prize the parents were contacted to report the child's address. o When two parties enter into a contract there are 3 important element that has to be considered according to Contract law in the United States -agreement, consideration, and intentions. In addition to that, the parties must have legal abilities to provide the service they are contracted for, all of which was satisfied in case of Toysmart. The contract between Toysmart and the users stated to never allow anyone to access their data. o US bankruptcy law aims to achieve the largest financial benefit of the lenders of a bankrupt company. The bankruptcy code gives great freedom to the liquidation of a company’s assets and even allows for the cancellation of certain types of contractual commitments in order to support the value of the debtor’s …show more content…
o The consulting firm could have suggested a different legal option for the other than selling consumers’ personal information. • Possible Justifications for Actions o Toysmart.com might state that as a customary in bankruptcy selling of assets was the only choice they had and they had no other bulk assets that could pay off their million dollar debt other than the personal information of their customers. o The consulting firm might state that the suggestion of selling assets was not compelling and Toysmart had all rights to decline the suggestion. o The recovery group might justify that they were unaware of the privacy contract between toysmart and the users. • Key Statements o Toysmart revealed the prestigious privacy stamp given by an organization called TRUSTe o Toysmart also pledged that they would “never share [their customers’] information with a third party.” o The contract between Toysmart and the users stated to never allow anyone to access their