This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In 2016, legal tech entrepreneur Derek Bluford was riding high. But that all came crashing down after I reported in 2016 of Bluford’s settlement of a lawsuit charging him with impersonating a lawyer, forging legal documents and fraudulently swindling two clients. QuickLegal. Following my report, QuickLegal quickly shut down.
Robinson alleges that from 2016 to 2022, Robinson’s recording of the song Maple Leaf Rag played on a two-minute loop every time a user sat down at the piano. On this basis, the court distinguished VHT v. Roblox invoked the statute of limitations, because the upload occurred in 2016 and Robinson sued in 2024. Implications.
To dispose of various motions, the court must construe the statutory term “social media platform.” The court recognizes this drafting flaw: the text of the social media platform definition is broad. –the court sides with the statutory text and its massively overbroad definition.
The low grade the court earned is a consequence of it losing many points by misstating the law, misapplying the law, and especially skipping over the part where it was supposed to share its analysis and instead just stated its conclusion. Nope, the Supreme Court didn’t say that. 2016), aff’d , 674 F. MSCHF Prod. Studio, Inc.
After two trips to the 9th Circuit, a remand from the Supreme Court, and nearly six years of motions and posturing, the outcome of the litigation was a permanent injunction against hiQ, a win for LinkedIn, and insolvency for scraper hiQ Labs. The court dismissed the market division argument on the grounds that it was time barred.
Tortious Interference with a Business Model Before getting into the details of the court ruling, I always think it’s good to zoom out when we talk about CFAA cases to remember what’s happening from a legal and strategic perspective. Sometimes, when we blog these technology cases, we act as if the law in California is the law everywhere.
The court agrees with Microsoft. ’…the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment finding Microsoft immune from Mr. Google, Inc., 2016); Fakhrian v. 2016 WL 1650705 (Cal. 2016); Despot v. 2016 WL 4148085 (W.D. 2016); Manchanda v. 2016 WL 6806250 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Mosha v.
The flagship law in this area is the Consumer Review Fairness Act, enacted by Congress in 2016. At this point, the plaintiffs are arguing that their claims belong in state court because their allegations are too weak to support Article III standing for federal court. This pernicious business practice emerged around 15 years ago.
At issue are two versions of the TOS from 2016 and 2019. The named plaintiff, Jackson, agreed to the 2016 TOS. The 2016 TOS provided an opt-out for the arbitration provision, but Jackson didn’t exercise it. Nor did the court have other evidence that might allow it to assess notice, such as a description of the email.
The court easily dismisses per Section 230: ICS Provider. Numerous courts have held Google is one. ” The court summarizes: “Google has immunity from her state law claims, as it cannot be held liable for search engine results showing a third party’s statement.” This court repeatedly cites the Kabbaj case.
In 2016, Malwarebytes classified Enigma’s software as “malicious,” a “threat,” and a “potentially unwanted program” (or PUP), because the programs allegedly were “scareware.” ” Enigma challenged Malwarebytes’ classifications in court. ” NOT HELPFUL.
We’ve blogged some of his cases before ( 1 , 2 ), including the lower court ruling in this case. In 2016, the defendant IJR published an article/listicle titled “15 Signs Your Daddy Was a Conservative.” ” The district court granted summary judgment to IJR. The appeals court doesn’t see it.
In 2016, Time “embedded” one of Brauer’s Instagram posts, featuring one of his photos of Hilary Clinton, in its entirety (preserving his username or “handle”, his caption, and his links and hashtags). Supreme Court. Instagram, LLC , 2023 WL 4554649 (9th Cir. July 17, 2023). The Facts The facts are relatively straightforward.
The first is the 2016 Second Circuit FTC v. LeadClick decision , which said: “Courts typically have held that internet service providers, website exchange systems , online message boards, and search engines fall within this definition.” Zotos appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
In 2016, Congress enacted the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which bans businesses from trying to contractually restrict their customers’ reviews. The court is unmoved: “This provision clearly prohibits or restricts the ability of a Solar Titan customer to engage in a covered communication in violation of the CRFA.”
In 2016, Congress enacted the Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA). However, as we know, courts routinely and predictably make errors when ruling on ex parte motions, so any additional legislative embrace of ex parte procedures is always fraught with peril. Fortunately, the district court rejected the DTSA ex parte seizure request.
I previously blogged this case in 2022. She played the game virtually every day from 2016-19–over 10,000 hours worth–and spent over $9,000 on in-game transactions. The court dismisses them all. To me, the phrase is an oxymoron–courts can’t just randomly manufacture agency relationships.
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. Do courts fully reopen or not? Also last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a pilot project to permit “legal paraprofessionals” to provide legal services in certain matters.
The district court said that the buyers who made their purchases on the website had to go to arbitration, but the buyers who made their purchases on their mobile devices could stay in court. The court says it’s immaterial that there is a potentially long time delay between user registration and the purchases. Sadlock v.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
(Long-time readers may recall that this blog had a several-year arrangement with ShutterStock to use their stock photos to illustrate blog posts; that arrangement ended in 2016). The court’s discussion of the topic: Offensive images can contribute to a hostile work environment. –Thompson v.
The green “upgrade now” button plays a key role in the court’s latest analysis: Enigma sued Malwarebytes for its classifications in 2016, back when Obama was still president. The Supreme Court denied Malwarebyte’s appeal. Today I’m blogging the district court decision after that remand.
Trademark owner lost a jury trial, allegedly because the court’s instructions to the jury about initial interest confusion were not favorable enough to the rightsowner. Whether to accept that belief as credible is for a jury to decide, not a matter of law for the Court, and summary judgment must be denied.” March 29, 2023).
Since 2015, she has served on the Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Equality. Wright Memorial Award for appellate advocacy in the Ames Moot Court Competition. Launched in 2016, the conference was one of the first in the state to explore future law, or trends that are impacting the trajectory of the legal profession.
Designed for first-time test takers, this blog post is divided into four parts: 1) how to create a National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) account, 2) how to register for the MPRE, 3) a brief overview of the MPRE, and 4) study materials and study tips to prepare for the MPRE. states and territories except Puerto Rico and Wisconsin.
The landscape began to shift in 2016 when the Supreme Court ( O’Bannon ) ruled that the NCAA’s bar on student-athletes profiting from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) violated federal antitrust law. The Carter/House/Hubbard Settlement’s Impact on NIL Several elements of the settlement directly impact NIL.
In July of 2023, designers Krista Perry, Larissa Martinez and Jay Baron filed a complaint in California federal court, alleging that Shein’s “egregious intellectual property infringement” is “baked into its business model.” Additionally, Baron asserts that the mark “Trying my Best” is a source-identifier for him and his products.
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. Do courts fully reopen or not? Also last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a pilot project to permit “legal paraprofessionals” to provide legal services in certain matters.
10] Although the initial patent on Humira expired in 2016, thanks to the over 75 patents filed three years before its expiration, AbbVie is set to hold the monopoly until 2034. [11] 25] However, due to a 2013 Supreme Court decision in Federal Trade Commission v. 7] More than half of the top 12 selling drugs in the U.S.
In 2016, I started a company called compass, which was built around a case file database that a small independent publisher in Canada, who was shutting down was making available and that gave us a chance to start working with Canadian case law with a view to doing what it is we’re doing right now.
For purposes of these blog posts, we focus mainly on the former use case—matching a face to a specific person for identification purposes—rather than other use cases such as emotional evaluation and lie detection. The image is then turned into a biometric template that can be compared to another template in search of a match. See Vance v.
93-02 (1993); CO Opinion 136 (2019); DC Bar Ethics Opinion 370 (2016). An individual who elects to try their former lawyer in the court of public opinion rather than before a tribunal and makes serious accusations that put confidential information at issue assumes the risk that such information will be disclosed in the lawyer’s response.
It even wrote me a funny Limerick about the Supreme Court: “ There once were nine judges supreme whose robes were a legal dream. And I think a poignant example of this is on February 22 of this year, Joshua Browder, who is the CEO of Do Not Pay was planning to use ChatGPT to defend a client in traffic court, here in California.
But by providing a foil in litigation against both the Center for Countering Digital Hate (“CCDH”) and Bright Data (the world’s largest seller of scraped data), he’s given judges in the most important district court in the country for tech legal issues, the Northern District of California, plenty of motivation to rule against him.
Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. For nearly 30 years, the framework for judging fair use cases has been remarkably stable, based on Justice Souter’s masterful opinion for a unanimous Court in Campbell v. [Eric’s note: this is the post you’ve been waiting for: Prof. 569 (1994).
the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act does not reach trademark infringement that occurs outside of the United States (US). Moreover, the US Supreme Court has resurrected a long-disused canon of statutory construction : The presumption against extraterritorial application of US statutes. Hetronic International Inc. ,
Two prior blog posts on Bell’s litigation efforts: Fair Use Protects High Schools Use of Inspirational MemeBell v. The court opinion includes a screengrab of the tweet (see page 3). It contained a passage that has become a meme in the sports community. Bell has separately registered a copyright in the passage.
In 2016, the defendant licensed the plaintiff’s Equine Boarding Forms Package, consisting of form releases for adults and minors. Distribution The court says “the Forms were accessible at the URLs that plaintiff located. ” The court also rejects an implied license defense using an overly restrictive test.
If you’re interested in working with me to adapt this blog post into an academic essay format, email me.] This blog post is about the following two phrases: “[T]he Communications Decency Act was not meant to create a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet.” May 31, 2016) Fields v. 10, 2016) Fields v.
Jürgen Kühling is also a member of the German Monopolies Commission since July 1, 2016 and elected chairman since September 2020. Professor Kühling has been a member of the monopolies commission since July 1, 2016 and elected chairman since September 2020. And it’s going to be checked by the European Court of Justice.
Jürgen Kühling is also a member of the German Monopolies Commission since July 1, 2016 and elected chairman since September 2020. Professor Kühling has been a member of the monopolies commission since July 1, 2016 and elected chairman since September 2020. And it’s going to be checked by the European Court of Justice.
In 2019, a California federal court denied Aerojet’s motion to dismiss the claims and, in 2022, denied Aerojet’s motion for summary judgment, finding that partial disclosures would not relieve Aerojet of liability if it nonetheless failed to disclose its noncompliance with material regulatory provisions. United States ex rel.
12] Herzberg’s family sued Uber, the owner of the vehicle, but whether Uber or its programmers would have been found liable in civil court isn’t clear—the parties reached a confidential settlement. [13] 18] Because Japan was the appropriate forum, the court did not have authority and had to dismiss the case. 10, 2023, 8:54 AM). [2]
And this is one that the US Supreme Court has recognized is not really a bright line, in the case called Carpenter vs. United States from 2018. This is a case where the Supreme Court held that the government needed to get a warrant in order to obtain the cell phone locations of a person over a period of time.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content