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
Pandabuy initially no-showed in the case, so the court converted the TRO to a preliminary injunction. Pandabuy eventually showed up in court and explained how it operates more like a passive facilitator than a seller or manufacturer. This additional context prompted the court to dissolve the injunction. SAD Scheme Cases Suck.
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.
” (Plus, the court notes that while he’s in prison, his job prospects are limited). ” Doxing The relevant statute applies when a defendant intentionally published the plaintiff’s personally identifiable information without the consent of the person whose information is published.”
The JMOL had two primary conclusions: First , that the CFAA has extraterritorial application, and therefore it was appropriate for this court to apply the CFAA here. By the time trial rolled around, this case involved only an Irish plaintiff (Ryanair) and a Dutch defendant (Booking.com B.V.). But this court says, not so.
The defendant claimed that the First Amendment barred the lawsuit “because the claims would interfere with Defendant’s First Amendment discretion to choose its own content moderation policy,” citing the O’Handley district court case. The court disagrees. 2025 WL 819567 (C.D. ” What?
The defendant invoked the arbitration clause in its TOS. Extensively citing Chabolla , the court rejects the arbitration request. The court says Plex’s relationship context cuts against TOS formation. The court’s treatment of the sign-up screen’s call-to-action is perplexing (no pun intended).
The court summarizes the plaintiffs’ allegations: D.G. Seeking redress, Plaintiffs sued Defendants on the theory that their design decisions and failure to disclose the dangers of their products were the cause of D.G.s The court dismisses Roblox, Google, and Apple from the case. Plaintiffs further allege that D.G.s
G6 presented the court with a screenshot of Motel 6’s standard account creation process: G6 added the red box for the court. Normally, we’d expect the court to pixel-police this screen, looking for defects. Thus, the court denies arbitration of this case. G6 sought to arbitrate the case per its TOS.
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.
Mitigate Malpractice Risks and Legal Disqualifications Overlooking conflicts invites catastrophic consequences: malpractice lawsuits, court sanctions, or forced withdrawal from cases. Defend the Firm’s Reputation and Client Trust A single conflict oversight can irreparably damage a firm’s credibility.
The court summarizes the case: Rodney Woodland, a freelance artist and model, posts semi-naked photographs of himself in different poses on Instagram. The court displayed all of the photos side-by-side, so of course we’re going to look at them. I guess that makes me old-school. So I think this is a SFW post.
Shopify said California courts lack personal jurisdiction over it. The district court agreed with Shopify, as did a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The en banc court issues a total of four opinions, and collectively they show Shopify was never close. Briskin sued Shopify for a variety of privacy violations in California.
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. 2025 may bring some clarity to the legal status of AI, including through highly anticipated guidance from the U.S.
13, 2025, by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), hours after a Monday court ruling reinstated the reporting requirement. 1, 2025, BOI reporting deadline pending a further order of the court. The injunction was issued in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. Garland , No. 4:24-CV-478 (E.D. ” Read more…
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. 230(e)(3).
The court disagrees but gives plaintiffs leave to amend. (As The court says these allegations aren’t good enough in light of Hamidi. First, the court says the mere placement of cookies, without more, doesn’t show any actual injury to the plaintiffs. The court cites Doe I v. 2025 WL 1635956 (E.D.
The court dismisses the case entirely with leave to amend. The court responds: “Plaintiffs do not clearly identify the ‘product’ at issue or the ‘design defect’ it allegedly contains.” Thus, to remedy the alleged defect, Defendants would have to change the content posted on their platforms.
March 18, 2025) This case involved the completely AI-generated work, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”: The copyright applicant, Thaler, disclaimed any human involvement in the work’s creation. The district court ruled it wasn’t copyrightable. ” The court also isn’t sold on the irreparable injury.
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. On this basis, the court distinguished VHT v.
Flixbus successfully defends by saying that the plaintiff consented to the disclosures via its TOS. The court correctly calls this a “clickwrap.” ” The court says that the TOS made adequate disclosures of the pixel’s conduct. 2025 WL 1592961 (S.D. So this isn’t an artificial time constraint.
White now claims that DistroKid infringed his copyrights to the beats, both directly and indirectly (the court dismissed the indirect claims last year). DistroKid defends against the direct copyright infringement claim using the volitional conduct argument. The court summarizes the doctrine (comparing the Cablevision and EMI v.
The plaintiff, a fast-fashion vendor operating under the brand Modlily, filed a complaint under seal against 20 defendants, got an ex parte TRO and asset freeze, and rolled to an unopposed preliminary injunction. Echoing Patmont, the court said the “post-domain path of a URL, however, does not typically signify source.
Capital One defended on Section 230 grounds (among others). The district court agrees with the plaintiff. ” I disagree with the court’s characterization of Section 230’s goals, but I can see why the 230 defense vexed the court. .” 2025 WL 606194 (W.D. ” Groan.
This includes survivors, witnesses, criminal defendants, and convicts. If youd like to hear from cutting-edge speakers on the movement toward trauma-informed justice and other relevant topics in the legal industry, be sure to register for ClioCon 2025. In other words, what are the advantages of a trauma-informed justice system?
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. March 19, 2025). The 2024 district court opinion.
2025 WL 1009179 (S.D.N.Y. April 4, 2025), might be the most important case pending on the legality of scraping public data to create training data sets to build large language models (“LLMs”). Though Microsoft is the named defendant in the case, the real players here are the New York Times and OpenAI. The court agreed.
The Court’s Opinion No Defamatory Statement The court says “a reasonable reader in Riehl’s position could not have concluded that the challenged ChatGPT output communicated “actual facts”” because the summarized lawsuit was after ChatGPT’s cutoff date and ChatGPT had disclaimers about hallucinations.
But in 2025, many GenAI tools are now well developed for enterprises, have demonstrated that they can provide enormous value, and their risks are better understood, which leads to a different cost-benefit analysis. 13, 2025), [link] ; Press Release, Sec & Exch. The cover art used in this blog post was generated by ChatGPT 4o. [1]
Meta Platforms (“Meta” ), the court similarly concluded that training an AI was fair use of copyrighted (and even pirated) works—but strongly suggested the outcome may have been different on a better-developed record. Just one day later, on June 25, 2025, Judge Chhabria handed down a decision in Meta , which cited Anthropic.
Whether the issue involves valuation disputes, lost profits, or allegations of financial fraud, attorneys rely on forensic accountants to provide the objective, analytical firepower needed to build or defend a case. Our proprietary business development methodology—Courting Your Clients—is offered exclusively by Legal Expert Connections, Inc.
Invisible Narratives sought an ex parte TRO to prevent that from happening, which the court grants. The court relies on 512(f) as the basis of the TRO: “Invisible Narratives has presented evidence that Next Level was neither the original creator of Skibidi Toilet nor the lawful copyright owner of Skibidi Toilet characters.
The defendant Nivoda is an online retailer[FN] that displays how its prices are discounted compared to the Rapaport prices (see screenshot). Note: the court surely meant Nivoda, not Rapaport. May 2, 2025). This case involves diamond prices. This publication serves as an industry benchmark. the abysmal CDN v. Cite to Banxcorp v.
As the first quarter of 2025 draws to a close and we look ahead to the spring, important changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) regarding the use of AI in the courtroom are on the horizon. 7, 2025 ) , Tab 3A Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules (Dec. See Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules Agenda Book (Nov.
2025 WL 961473 (W.D.N.Y. March 31, 2025) This case involves the service Joybuy, which listed items for sale in Walmart.coms marketplace. The court is unclear about how Joybuy operates, but it appears that Joybuy (via the entity JD) runs its own online marketplace. Omnia Studios Ltd. JD E-Commerce America Ltd.,
The court says that Viral DRM’s exclusive “management” rights is not the same as ownership or an exclusive license to the copyright. The court says that Viral DRM doesn’t have standing to enforce the copyright. 2025 WL 660250 (N.D. 2025 WL 660250 (N.D. Case Citation : Viral DRM LLC v. Alibaba N.D.
2 A pre-trial diversion program is a legal mechanism that postpones the criminal process to give the defendant a chance to receive rehabilitation or treatment. Third, the court must determine that the individual’s symptoms can be treated effectively with the proposed plan. As more cases in California are diverted under Cal.
But on June 4th, Reddit sued Anthropic in the Superior Court of California for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, trespass to chattels, tortious interference, and unfair competition. Almost all of the major legal scraping precedents happened in the Northern District, and it is definitely unusual that this was filed in state court.
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.
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. Now, however, a district court decision suggests that providers can no longer take it for granted that they wont face liability for reporting non-CSAM.
On the day before the law’s effectiveness, the district court enjoins parts of the law but says that other parts may be constitutional. The court subsequently enjoined all upheld provisions until February 1 to see if the Ninth Circuit will extend the injunction pending its review. The court says that’s not so.
The defendant runs a Florida horse ranch. In 2016, the defendant licensed the plaintiff’s Equine Boarding Forms Package, consisting of form releases for adults and minors. The license permitted the defendant to “copy, email and otherwise distribute the” forms but not post them to the web. ” Citing Bell v.
The district court dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirms every point of the district court’s decision. ” BTW, I disagree with the court’s summation of the Internet Brands case; I feel the Ninth Circuit got that one wrong because that case was always about third-party content. .”
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 state gamely tried to defend the law anyway, to no avail. This tees up the case for its inevitable appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
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.
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