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 September 2023, the FTC, along with 19 states, filed a lawsuit against Amazon , alleging that the company used three different algorithmic pricing models to sustain its monopoly power. The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in October 2026.
Although the case was just settled, this lawsuit was not Nikes first foray into patent infringement litigationnor is it likely to be its last. In its lawsuit, Nike sought both damages and a permanent injunction to stop Lululemon from producing the allegedly infringing designs. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.
Talk about court red-handed Thomas Claburn Demonstrating yet again that uncritically trusting the output of generative AI is dangerous, attorneys involved in a product liability lawsuit have apologized to the presiding judge for submitting documents that cite non-existent legal cases.
Candidate, 2026 GenAI’s threat to authenticating evidence In June 2023, the story of Mata v. The court responded by siding with the defense, finding that plaintiff’s deepfake allegation “underscores the concern that [plaintiff’s counsel] is heavily invested in protecting its own interests, to the detriment of those of the class.”
AI footnote fail triggers legal palmface in music copyright spat Thomas Claburn An attorney defending AI firm Anthropic in a copyright case brought by music publishers apologized to the court on Thursday for citation errors that slipped into a filing after using the biz’s own AI tool, Claude, to format references.
I previously blogged on this issue in 2023. Thus, lawsuits like this expose the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma facing Internet services who are compelled to do age authentication. Second, the court turns to the TOS formation question. The court sends the case to arbitration.
The past year was marked by many more filed cases than decisions, and those decisions that were issued largely demonstrated how well-known pitfalls will also hamper this new wave of AI lawsuits. Courts have widely rejected claims that AI models themselves are unlawful derivatives of the copyrighted works they were trained on. [3]
In this blog post, we provide an overview of the technologies that plaintiffs most commonly target for CIPA lawsuits and measures that companies can take to mitigate their CIPA litigation risk. Courts receptions to these claims have varied. See, e.g. , Javier v. Assurance IQ, LLC , 649 F. 3d 891 (N.D. For example, in Ambriz v.
On June 27, 2025, Lululemon filed a federal lawsuit accusing Costco of selling “confusingly similar” knockoffs of its best-selling clothes—including its Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants. But instead of getting public support, Lululemon is facing an uphill battle in the court of public opinion.
Probably not intentional, but ‘150 person-hours’ of work were still lost Brandon Vigliarolo The New York Times has filed a letter in its copyright infringement case against OpenAI and Microsoft, alerting the court that the ChatGPT maker accidentally deleted a bunch of data that may have been evidence.
9] Hearing the case on appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti-monopolistic requirements, ordering the divestment of these major studios from their cinemas to ensure more widespread competition. [10] 9, 2023), [link] [7] The Paramount Decrees , U.S. 4, 2023), [link] [13] G. 4, 2023), [link] [17] J. 131 (1948). [6]
Thats the basis for a recent opinion from a Florida federal district court that could have major implications for online services CSAM detection and reporting practices. Nevertheless, many choose to do so voluntarily, yielding nearly 36 million reports to the CyberTipline in 2023 alone. whereas CSAM is illegal everywhere.
The complaint was brought under the FCA’s qui tam provisions, whereby a private citizen can bring a lawsuit on behalf of the government. The underlying failures alleged in the settlement occurred between 2018 and 2023. The DOJ formally intervened in the case on October 23, 2024 and notified the court that it settled with Penn State.
Whether copyrighted works can be freely used to train generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) models is at the core of dozens of lawsuits filed since AI burst onto the scene several years ago. In Kadrey v. But the two opinions took somewhat different paths to reach the same conclusion.
In early 2024, the court granted a preliminary injunction against the law going into effect. Borrowing heavily from its prior opinion, the court has now granted the permanent injunction. The court responds: “the Act is not narrowly tailored to protect minors against oppressive contracts.
9) Supreme Court Tamps Down on Jawboning and Government Social Media Lawsuits. The Supreme Court is taking a steady stream of Internet Law cases, a trend that will continue for some time. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the TikTok ban, and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Free Speech Coalition v.
I wrote my Segregate-and-Suppress paper knowing that its publication date might come after the Supreme Court issued its FSC v. Goldman’s Statement on the Supreme Court’s Demolition of the Internet in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Court Permanently Enjoins Ohio’s Segregate-and-Suppress/Parental Consent Law–NetChoice v.
NetChoice challenged Arkansas Act 689 of 2023, the Social Media Safety Act. The court preliminarily enjoined the law in 2023. Due to the various entities that are excluded from the definition of social media platforms, the court says the ban is content-based. Scrutiny Level. As a result, strict scrutiny applies.
In 2023 alone, 62 million Americans sought medical attention for preventable injuries. The numbers below paint a clear picture of both the human toll and economic burden that injuries create nationwide: 62 million peopleabout one in fivesought medical attention for an injury in 2023 ( National Safety Council ). Of the over 1.3
However, it’s another indicator that circuits outside the Third are likely to disagree with the Anderson ruling, virtually ensuring the conflict will reach the Supreme Court. (In In a mild surprise, TikTok abandoned its Supreme Court appeal of the Anderson case, so that reconciliation will have to wait a bit longer).
Now, courts will have the benefit of a “pre-publication” version of the Copyright Office’s long-awaited Report on Generative AI Training (the “May 2025 Report”). Adding to the uncertainty, the day after the pre-publication report was released, the Trump administration dismissed the Register of Copyrights—a move she is challenging in court.
The Supreme Court struck down the CDA in 1997 in Reno v. For example, Texas passed a law extremely similar to the CDA and essentially dared the courts to strike it down. The Fifth Circuit, being the Fifth Circuit, thought the law was swell ; I expect the Supreme Court will reverse that , at least in part.
3] The city of Norfolk has deployed 172 ‘Flock Safety’ ALPRs, resulting in numerous lawsuits. [4] 6] The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would constitute the use of these cameras as a Fourth Amendment violation and would permanently enjoin the City of Norfolk and its police department from operating the Flock cameras. [7]
In the last month, two more copyright lawsuits over city council videos have triggered my alerts. The court summarizes the facts: The two videos at issue comprise excerpts from Lakeway City Council meetings and a presentation Kilgore gave as mayor to Lakeway residents, sitting at a desk in front of United States and Texas flags.
He’s a Biden appointee from 2023). Schedule A Defendants Now Available: the Published Version of My SAD Scheme Article In a SAD Scheme Case, Court Rejects Injunction Over “Emoji” Trademark Schedule A (SAD Scheme) Plaintiff Sanctioned for “Fraud on the Court”–Xped v. Daniel in the Northern District of Illinois. (He’s
10] In October 2023, Tesla won the first U.S. 18] In a court filing requesting to keep the sum private, Tesla said it agreed to settle the case to “end years of litigation.” [19] 10] In October 2023, Tesla won the first U.S. Tesla Autopilot Lawsuit (2024 Update) , [link] (last updated: Feb. 10, 2023), [link] [10] Iiona D.
The evolution of generative AI (artificial intelligence) has captured the attention of many Americans during the first few months of 2023. Federal statutes do not provide clear answers to these questions, so courts will need to confront them. This free database provides public records of lawsuits in federal trial and appellate courts.
It has been a while since I have written about the copyright lawsuit by legal research giant Thomson Reuters against the no-shuttered legal research startup Ross Intelligence, in which TR alleges that Ross stole copyright content from Westlaw to build its own completing legal research product. See all stories about this lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims the BPOs were TikTok’s proxies. ” The court says this may have happened here: According to the complaint, TikTok required all content moderators to use its proprietary TCS software. ” Finally, the court cites the allegations that TikTok created harm by setting unreasonable productivity standards.
This long-running lawsuit started in 2019. When I first blogged this case in January 2021, I wrote: This lawsuit, like many others before it, claims that UGC services like YouTube commit illegal discrimination based on how they moderate content. Elenis Supreme Court ruling, but I wonder how it might apply to this case.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice. ” Zhang tried the breach-of-contract workaround, but the court says flatly: “There is no exception under Section 230 for breach of contract claims.” 2023 WL 5493823 (N.D. 23, 2023) The post Lawsuit Over Twitter Suspension Fails Again–Zhang v.
Represented by lawyers Maria Cristina Armenta and Credence Elizabeth Sol (who keep expanding their oeuvre of failed lawsuits against Internet services), Daniels claimed YouTube had to comply with 1983 because YouTube became a state actor. In 2021, the court quickly shut down that misguided argument. 2023 WL 2414258 (N.D.
2023 Taylor Swift’s fans, affectionately called Swifties, closed out 2022 with an antitrust complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Ticketmaster, the online ticketing giant. The post Swifties’ Ticketmaster Lawsuit Reveals ‘Anti-Hero’ Behavior appeared first on Berkeley Technology Law Journal.
Recapping a couple of doomed-from-inception lawsuits. Apparently the publication took place in 2019 and he filed suit in 2023. The court cites the old Lycos case for the proposition that 230 applies to failure to remove, even after notice. The court cites to Hassell v. Was the court offering him free legal advice?
The court says that SMS’s photos clear the very low copyrightability threshold. ” Because the products are allegedly identical, the court says there are only so many ways to depict them. ” Because the products are allegedly identical, the court says there are only so many ways to depict them. Pharmaaid Corp. ,
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.
With respect to the channel removal, the court says: “YouTube had no obligation to host or serve content…YouTube had the discretion to take down content that harmed its users… YouTube had the discretion to terminate channels without warning after a single case of severe abuse.” ” Cites to Daniels v.
We used to see lawsuits like this 15+ years ago, but we don’t see them any more because they are so obviously doomed by Section 230. The court applies the standard three-part Section 230 test: ICS Provider. ” The court is confused. ” The court is confused. Bradford, 2023 U.S. LifelongLearning.
The court says that the merchant made a descriptive “fair use” of the “emoji” term, but the court didn’t actually say that “emoji” qualifies as a descriptive trademark, instead of an arbitrary mark, for stickers. ” Trademark law does not restrict that usage. ” That’s true.
The court rules for Reddit on all counts. The court says Rogozinski doesn’t have priority over Reddit. The court does not credit Rogozinski’s role in creating the subreddit as a use in commerce, and Rogozinski’s other uses (such as the book title) don’t count either. 2023 WL 4475581 (N.D.
This paper explains the scheme, how it bypasses standard legal safeguards, how it’s affected hundreds of thousands of defendants, and how it may have cost the federal courts a quarter-billion dollars. 32nd Annual DePaul Law Review Symposium , Chicago, April 14, 2023. The paper concludes with some ideas about ways to curb the system.
, Atari sought a preliminary injunction, which the court denies because “Atari has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits.” ” In support of Printify’s position, the court summarizes: Printify does not design the products, does not manufacture or print the products, and does not ship the products.
2023 WL 5017711 (D. July 28, 2023). Platkin, 2023 WL 6389744 (D.N.J. 29, 2023): the content at issue in this case is the digital firearms information that DD published, from 2012 through 2020, to its own website, DEFCAD. Miller, 2023 WL 6385816 (E.D.N.Y. ” * Doe v. Grant, 2021 Ariz. LEXIS 1327 (Az.
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