Skip to main content

Hollyrock principal used ID reader to validate proof of age upon entry, later used stored address information to send marketing materials

UTICA, N.Y. (October 29, 2009) - Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that his office has stopped an area bar manager from using an identification verification scanner to retrieve addresses and personal information for the purpose of sending out unsolicited marketing materials.

Through an agreement with Attorney General Cuomo’s Office, Matthew S. Demar, managing employee of the Hollyrock bar, located on Varick St. in Utica, must stop using the scanner in such a manner, destroy the personal information he wrongfully obtained and pay a $5,000 penalty to the state.

“This individual improperly used the personal information of customers to promote his business,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “By doing so, he violated state law regarding the use of personal information and now must stop this practice and destroy the records he illegally obtained.”

Demar employed a scanner to check the validity of a person’s identification. However, the scanner also has the ability to store and retrieve the information read.

New York state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Law permits the use of a scanner only to determine whether a person is 21 years of age or older as a precondition for the purchase of an alcoholic beverage. The statute prohibits the resale or dissemination of the information to any third person and it prohibits using that information for any advertising or marketing.

Attorney General Cuomo’s investigation determined that Demar collected the name, address, date of birth, gender, driver’s license number and expiration date of more than 5,000 individuals. Demar then sent a pamphlet advertising various events at Hollyrock to these former patrons.

Attorney General Cuomo urges all consumers to be cautious with their personal information to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft. Tips and important information can be found online at www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/consumer_frauds/identity_theft.html.Utica-area Consumers who believe they are being defrauded or wrongly targeted by any business may contact the Utica regional office by calling 315-793-2225.

The Hollyrock case was handled by Assistant Attorney General-in-Charge of the Utica Regional Office Joel Marmelstein.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more