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
The court does award damages for the 512(f) claims in some of the cases based on the defendants counternotifications. This produces a relatively rare plaintiff win under 512(f), where plaintiff wins usually occur only when the defendants no-show. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?
The TRO language doesn’t purport to apply to YouTube, nor could it unless YouTube had also been named a defendant. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Longarzo * DMCAs Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful StateLaw ClaimsStevens v. Spoiler: Not Well) * Another Section 512(f) Case FailsISE v.
Kilgore might need better legal advice on copyright law…but also, see my post on the Lenz case predicting that all 512(f) defendants had to do is say “yeah, I thought about fair use” and they would get a free pass. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?
Supporters of driverless vehicles vehemently defend the technology as “a leap forward that will keep San Francisco on the cutting edge of technology while helping more disabled people who are unable to drive to get around town and reducing the risks posed by drunk driving.” ” But are there laws governing their use?
StateLaws Permitting but Regulating Collection and Use of Biometric Identifiers, including Facial Data. As noted, currently, only Illinois, Washington, and Texas have laws at the state level that aim to expressly and comprehensively address biometric privacy. In Santana v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. ,
July 23, 2024): the defendants allegedly falsely targeted 117k items through its copyright webform, which Google delisted based on these false premises. Google sued for equitable relief; the defendants defaulted; and the court grants an injunction against further false submittals. 27, 2024) BONUS: Google LLC v.
The plaintiffs asserted products liability and related claims against Snap, on the premise that Snap “is an inherently dangerous software product that Defendants deceptively advertise and promote in a way that facilitates sex crimes against children.” ” Third-Party Content. ” Application.
The 9th Circuit held that some foreign defendants were subject to jurisdiction. On remand, the court dismisses the remaining defendants primarily due to Section 230, with leave to amend. They then uploaded the videos (“Videos”) to adult websites operated by two of the defendants, i.e., WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s.
March 23, 2023) Plaintiff provides no argument or supporting legal authority suggesting that a Defendant who files a counter-notice pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § And, emailing the Summons and Complaint to a defendant does not satisfy Rule 4’s requirements for proper service. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?
In addition, although the takedown notices state that the company contacting Defendants, Appdetex, is Yuga’s DMCA Agent, it does not state that the notice is a DMCA notice. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Longarzo * DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful StateLaw Claims–Stevens v.
May 3, 2023) More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v. Per Reddit, the panel said yes to Q1 and no to Q2.
Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v.
MG Freesites because the defendant in that case hosted the video and allegedly exercised other content moderation steps around it. FOSTA The plaintiff invoked the FOSTA exception to Section 230, which required the court to decide if plaintiffs to show the defendant had the higher scienter required by 1591 or the lower scienter of 1595.
Thus, this rhetorical move doesn’t help defendants identify what conduct is clearly legal. Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. Omegle * Section 230 Helps Craigslist Defeat Sex Trafficking Case–LH v.
Section 230 says there can be only one defendant for those items of third-party content, and it isn’t the tertiary player Salesforce. Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. The plaintiffs also invoked FOSTA.
Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v.
The panel summarizes: “Because Does statelaw claims necessarily implicate Grindrs role as a publisher of third-party content, 230 bars those claims. Doe fails to state a plausible TVPRA claim, so Doe cannot invoke a statutory exception to 230 immunity.” The district court dismissed the case.
Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v.
The Florida federal court might also apply Florida statelaw, which includes the old Doe v. In other words, in each case, the defendant had a contract agreeing to provide servicesdto the plaintiff that the plaintiff valued, so I don’t see any basis to distinguish among these cases. ” This makes no sense.
A prior ruling summarized the facts the court describes as “harrowing”: In April 2022, Defendant Bendjy Charles (Charles) and Romelus raped Plaintiff. Defendants require all videos to contain tags. No video could be uploaded without choosing from a set of Defendants’ created tags.
The court says this isn’t a dispositive issue because “Judge Coogler would have come to the conclusion that Defendants were content providers and thus not entitled to immunity under Section 230 even if he had not considered Anderson.” TikTok ruling. This is both a Section 230 AND First Amendment issue. ” Say what?
I’m still blogging Section 230 cases as I see them, even though these posts are likely to have only historical value. ] * * * The court summarizes the horrifying allegations: In April 2022, Defendant Bendjy Charles (“Charles”) and Romelus raped Plaintiff. Charles and Romelus filmed each other while they raped Plaintiff.
How can the “back-office business services” vendor be deemed the proximate cause of any harms with two other defendants in front of it? For the plaintiffs to win against Salesforce (the tertiary defendant), they will need to show that the primary and secondary defendants committed legal violations (i.e.,
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