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
PT on Tuesday, December 3, 2024. He has defended a myriad of depositions of assorted witnesses for high-stakes cases throughout the United States. ET/11:00 a.m. The recording of this broadcast will also be available to Justia Connect Pro members shortly after the live event.
2024 WL 4882638 (C.D. 25, 2024) The post Amazon Must Defend “Yelp Law” Claim–Ramos v. ” This may be true, but it deserves more than a single sentence of “analysis.” ” Case Citation : Ramos v. Amazon.com, Inc. Amazon appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
The defendant, Kalita Mukul Creative, ran community-focused newsletters. The defendant published a bio on Sewell and included one of McDermott’s photos–apparently sourced from an unrelated Instagram account (possibly another infringer, or perhaps that account has a fair use defense?). Defendant’s financial benefit.
Toyota brought a SAD Scheme case against 103 defendants before Judge Daniel in the Northern District of Illinois. If these justifications sound familiar, it’s because these are the generic rotely-made defendant-unspecific allegations that are copied and pasted into most SAD Scheme complaints. Seriously, Toyota? Do better).
Despite the busy 2024 litigation year against companies offering AI platforms in 2024, significant intellectual property questions remain unanswered as the calendar turns to 2025. 1] Proving Defendants Use of Training Data Inputs. Showing Substantial Similarity of Generative AI Outputs.
She got less than 2,000 votes in the June 2024 primary. The TOS doesn’t impose such a duty: “nothing in the Terms promises or guarantees that Defendant will work with a user to restore access to an account at all, let alone on a specific timeline. 2024 WL 4565091 (N.D. Her claims go nowhere. ” Cites to Lewis v.
The court says the defendants’ arguments “seem to distill the issue to one of mere proximity of a notice to a sign up or other action button. Considering the webpages as a whole, the Court cannot find that Defendant’s website sufficiently provided reasonably conspicuous notice to Plaintiff and other users.”
Help pick the 15 legal tech startups that will get to compete at the eighth-annual Startup Alley at ABA TECHSHOW 2024. 14-17, 2024, in Chicago. This release is scheduled for January 2024. Our goal is to serve 2-4 cases per month by the end of 2024, with the projected revenue of $2-4M/year. What problem do you solve?
By guest blogger Tyler Ochoa This month, the Copyright Claims Board released its quarterly report of “Key Statistics,” covering the period from June 2022 (when it began operation) through September 2024 (9 quarters, or 27 months). Here are a few highlights from the report: 1.
299 limits joinder in patent cases to defendants who infringe using “the same accused product or process.” ” Congress enacted this requirement to restrict patent trolls who were filing lawsuits against defendants who had nothing in common but the allegation that they were infringing the same patent. 35 U.S.C. §
2024 WL 1268420 (N.D. March 26, 2024). Schedule A Defendants If TOS Formation Fails, Bad Legal Outcomes Are Likely to Follow–Doe v. Schedule A Defendants If TOS Formation Fails, Bad Legal Outcomes Are Likely to Follow–Doe v. Roblox The post Roblox Must Defend Illegal Gambling Claims–Colvin v. Roblox Corp.
Until this course of litigation is resolved, the parties remain categorically opposed: defendants seek to maximize the training data available to their algorithms, while plaintiffs livelihood depends on exclusive ownership and control of their IP.
Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation , 2024 WL 4532937 (N.D. Combined with prior rulings, in the October 24, 2024 ruling, the court summarizes where the various claims stand: It’s even more complicated, because several of the plaintiffs’ claims are based on state laws.
The plaintiff sued 163 defendants for online marketplace sales and got an ex parte TRO, including Amazon account freezes. After a couple of defendants showed up, the judge denied a TRO extension because of the possible lack of merit in the plaintiff’s infringement allegations. Then, the case fell apart. See ECF No.
I note that Ticketmaster is a special defendant due to their decades-long efforts to stretch/hork online contract formation law. 28, 2024) Some Prior Posts on Ticketmaster Browsewrap/Clickwrap Distinction Vexes Another Court–Nevarez v. I still teach the 2007 Ticketmaster v. Case Citation : Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. ,
“Plaintiff alleges Defendants downloaded and copied Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials from YouTube, and then re-uploaded infringing versions of Plaintiff’s copyrighted media content to their YouTube channels.” ” Viral DRM sued 20 defendants enumerated in a Schedule A and got an ex parte TRO. Jurisdiction.
The defendant Binello made a popular Roblox game called MeepCity allegedly visited 1B times: The game included a feature that allowed users to gather and talk with each other in a pizzeria, which included a piano that users could play to earn points within the game. Even if you aren’t a ragtime aficionado, you may have heard this tune.
24 CV 01514-CM, 2024 WL 4711729 (S.D.N.Y. To plead a violation of Section 1202(b), a copyright holder must also establish that the defendant knew, or had reasonable grounds to know, that their actions would “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal” copyright infringement. 22 CV 6823, 2024 WL 235217, at *9 (N.D. OpenAI Inc. ,
2024 In an industry ruled by trends, the nature of quiet luxury brands radically challenges how we view usage of trademarks in fashion. To oppose trademark rights on colors, the defendant there argued that it would deplete the supply of usable colors which would affect other producers’ ability to compete in the market.
[Note: the defendants in this case are enumerated on an “Annex A” instead of “Schedule A.” Judge Harjani says the plaintiff’s papers contain “a fair amount of conclusory language about a logical relationship among all defendants but not much, if any, facts to actually support that relationship.”
Google LLC , 2024 WL 3427161 (D. July 16, 2024) Lance Benedict is a musician. “A defendant does not “use” a plaintiff’s mark to [infringe] when the defendant merely provides a search engine service that allows third parties to search using the plaintiff’s mark. 2024 WL 3421685 (Mass. Benedict v.
As we previewed in our 2024 AI year in review , one of the big areas to watch in 2025 will be how much discovery courts are prepared to order into the inner workings of AI companies, especially in the face of arguments that discovery would reveal trade secrets or would be overbroad in cases based on specific claimed works. OpenAI, Inc.
Samuels sued the Lido DAO, but a shadowy entity (Dolphin CL, LLC) defended the Lido DAO on the grounds that the DAO wasn’t an entity at all; it is just software code. Lido DAO , 2024 U.S. 18, 2024) The post Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Treated as General Partnership for Liability Purposes–Samuels v.
” The Rehabilitation Act “does not apply to defendants who are private entities that do not receive federal funds.” ” With respect to the Unruh Act, the plaintiffs “alleges no facts to support that the Meta defendants engaged in intentional discrimination.” 2024 WL 3325389 (9th Cir.
The defendants sought to overturn the jury verdict. Fair Use Nature of Use “Defendants’ use of the tattoos was clearly commercial.” This was evident with Defendants’ “Create-A-Superstar” feature which enabled a user to take the tattoos and apply them to their own custom wrestler avatar. ” Really?
Note: this case is functionally moot because the defendant, Sunfrog, is already defunct. He ultimately summarizes: “District court decisions within the Sixth Circuit have held that plaintiffs must show the defendant ‘intentionally and knowingly’ copied the copyrighted work.”
The plaintiffs claim that purchasing the defendant’s initial loss leader offering caused the plaintiffs to subscribe to a hidden monthly recurring charge. Invoking the arbitration clause in the TOS, the defendant sought to send the lawsuit to arbitration. The 2024 district court opinion. Case Citation : Seneca v.
“Plaintiff does not allege any facts indicating that Defendant was contractually prohibited from removing her Google account.” “Defendant Google is a private business, not a state actor.” Google LLC , 2024 WL 3551878 (D.D.C. July 26, 2024). ” Fraud. ” Constitutional Violations.
Twitter , “the Court [referring to himself in the third person] paid insufficient heed to the requirement that Kelly Toys provide proof of the Alibaba Defendants’ knowledge.” The Court’s contempt Order was therefore improper under Rule 65(d)(2)(C) and must be vacated. .”
2024 WL 2021896 (N.D.N.Y. May 6, 2024) The post Section 230 Preempts Product Design Claims–Lama v. Publisher/Speaker Claims. We’re waiting to see how the appellate courts handle these issues before drawing any stronger conclusions about whether or not the product design workaround represents the end of Section 230.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant company is engaging in a form of corporate identity theft, trading on its license number, and that Angi promoted the interloper as a certified contractor without doing proper verification. Angi unsuccessfully defends on Section 230 grounds. Encor Solar LLC, 2024 WL 4062051 (D.
But even if the plaintiff connected the dots, With respect to defendant’s possession of contrary information, the amended complaint has, at best, plausibly alleged that defendant did not know if the photograph was of Zilis and failed to verify the accuracy of the photograph, despite knowing what Zilis looked like. June 3, 2024).
Take a look at the numbers: Amazon restrained $155k+ of the defendant’s money. That’s just for one of the many defendants in this case. “Defendant admits that it profited $32.30 The defendant fought back with its own damages expert. Would fair use apply? This post focuses on the case economics.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants knew they were collecting biometric data from Illinois citizens, including children, in violation of Illinois state law.” 2024 WL 3842563 (W.D. May 29, 2024) The post AWS Can’t Shake BIPA Lawsuit for Providing Services to NBA 2K–Mayhall v. Case Citation : Mayhall v.
He then sued the court document repository websites (and other defendants) for defamation, false advertising, and more. The court says Medina has no probability of prevailing against the repository websites due to Section 230: Medina does not dispute that legal research defendants are interactive computer service providers.
The US government brought a civil lawsuit against the defendants for 203 violations. A reminder that if the US government had prosecuted the defendants for violating the Clean Air Act, Section 230 would have been irrelevant (it doesn’t apply to federal criminal prosecutions). The defendants sell this hardware. It doesn’t work.
The plaintiff sued many defendants. State Dep’t of Health, 2024 U.S. May 28, 2024) The post Section 230 Applies to YouTube and Google Search Results–Montano v. This page gives you a sense of the complaints against the plaintiff. I’ll focus on Section 230 and Google/YouTube. ” Case Citation : Montano v.
Here’s the court’s entire Section 230 “analysis” (as opposed to its recap of the parties’ arguments): plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts with regard to each defendant to allege viable causes of action under a products liability theory. Case Citation : Jones v. Mean LLC , Index No.: 810316/2023 (N.Y.
This is especially salient because many potential defendants could decline to answer because the cost of litigation would likely outweigh the mandatory statutory damages amount. But the defendant no-showed, so all of these concerns go out the window. Instead, it makes me wonder why the defendants are no-showing.
Nintendos Legal Crusade Between 2022 and 2024, Nintendo launched numerous lawsuits and legal actions, shutting down fan projects, modding communities, and emulator developers. This legal onslaught raises important questions about patent enforcement, fair competition, and the broader impact on the gaming community.
Other arguments fail because “there is value in Minor Plaintiffs’ image and likeness, which Defendants then used for the purpose of commercial advertising and sales. Finally, Minor Plaintiffs are clearly prominent in the Photograph, and directly relate to the Defendants’ use: the promotion of robe sales.” Be Careful!–Khachatryan
The parties then filed renewed motions for summary judgment in October 2024. Defendants could have more success on the first fair use factor, purpose and character, in the context of a generative AI model. Defendants, on the other hand, will argue that a generative AI chatbot is not a substitute for a novel, song or film.
This includes survivors, witnesses, criminal defendants, and convicts. Ensure that the defendants feel heard and understood, working towards enhancing their trust in the legal system. Guarantee that the defendant always has a clear and transparent understanding of the process and the decisions affecting them.
In that case, the defendant created a marketplace for aftermarket car apps, which naturally included defeat devices. ” Having apparently not learned from that case, the EPA tried the same arguments against a more sympathetic defendant (eBay) and got an unsurprising outcome. .” 2024 WL 4350523 (E.D.N.Y.
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