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
Creating an effective lawyer blog post in 2025 requires a strategic approach that combines timeless principles with modern technological advancements. Using these AI-powered tools, you discover that “wrongful termination lawsuits” and “remote work legal rights” are highly searched topics.
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. In August 2024, the DOJ, along with 8 other states, filed a lawsuit against RealPage Inc.,
Separately, he brought a lawsuit over the Are We Dating the Same Guy? ” (Plus, the court notes that while he’s in prison, his job prospects are limited). Section 230 The court says it doesn’t need to address Section 230 because the claims all fail on their prima facie elements. Rajala , 2025 WL 1383286 (N.D.
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.
The court summarizes the plaintiffs’ allegations: D.G. The court dismisses Roblox, Google, and Apple from the case. The Court has no trouble concluding that Roblox Corp. The Court has no trouble concluding that Roblox Corp. In a footnote, the court adds: “Plaintiffs argue that they seek to hold Roblox Corp.
The district court granted summary judgment to YouTube. Qian seemed to claim that he didn’t get any notice and explanation about YouTube’s actions as he thought the TOS required, but the court disagrees. YouTube, LLC , 2025 WL 582785 (2d Cir. Qian sued YouTube for breaching its TOS. The Second Circuit affirms.
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. ” Instead, the court then compares this to the formation process at issue in the Berman case. .”
Riehl asked ChatGPT to summarize a lawsuit involving the foundation. Riehl knew that ChatGPT’s claim was fishy and that the ChatGPT version he was using had an index cutoff date before the lawsuit filing. The court then says: the undisputed evidence establishes that OpenAI did not act with “actual malice.”
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.
Last year, the Ninth Circuit said that plaintiffs could get around Section 230 in their lawsuit against the app maker YOLO because the app maker said it would ban users for inappropriate statements and would unmask harassers. The court disagrees. 2025 WL 819567 (C.D. ” What? ” What? Case Citation : Bride v.
Mitigate Malpractice Risks and Legal Disqualifications Overlooking conflicts invites catastrophic consequences: malpractice lawsuits, court sanctions, or forced withdrawal from cases. The Bottom Line: In 2025, Conflict Checks are About Survival The legal landscape has changed. The benchmarks are clear.
Brett Trout On April 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the main court for resolving patent issues) issued a significant decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. The Court’s Analysis Applying the two-step framework from Alice Corp. Fox Corp. (No.
The court summarizes the facts: In April 2024, Hall became involved in a public feud with another YouTube user, MoneyBoy Tr3y, (Tr3y) which led to the exchange of multiple DMCA takedown notices between the two. YouTube, LLC, 2025 WL 1482007 (N.D. May 5, 2025). The post YouTuber Loses Lawsuit Over Account Suspension–Hall v.
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.
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. In Millette v. OpenAI, Inc.,
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.
This lawsuit purports to focuses on the allegedly defective operation of the services’ reporting tools, but the plaintiffs’ goal was to hold the services accountable for their alleged inaction in response to some reports. The court dismisses the case entirely with leave to amend. This doctrinal move doesn’t work.
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.
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. June 5, 2025) More Posts on the Pixel Cases Meta Pixels Case Dismissed by Second Circuit–Solomon v. So this isn’t an artificial time constraint.
The plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit against Capital One based on Washington’s anti-spam law and related claims. 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. .”
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. Google, LLC , 2025 WL 830450 (N.D. See, e.g. , Javier v. Assurance IQ, LLC , 649 F.
Invoking the arbitration clause in the TOS, the defendant sought to send the lawsuit to arbitration. The district court said “There are elements of both [clickwrap and sign-in-wrap] here.” This is another example where courts will be quite unforgiving about any idiosyncracies in the TOS formation process.
It is one of the many video game addiction lawsuits percolating throughout the courts nationwide. Without showing the initial TOS page, the court labels it a “clickwrap.” The court applies the law formalistically: N.O. The court uses the same formalistic logic to say that the two children agreed to the TOS.
”] This lawsuits raises one of the venerable but surprisingly vexing copyright law questions: when is a price copyrightable? Note: the court surely meant Nivoda, not Rapaport. May 2, 2025). This lawsuit was filed in early January. the abysmal CDN v. .” the abysmal CDN v. Cite to Banxcorp v.
The court summarizes: Plaintiff does not argue that Modlily appears in the product name or description of these listings, or anywhere on the webpage itself. Echoing Patmont, the court said the “post-domain path of a URL, however, does not typically signify source. Patmont was followed by Interactive Products Corp.
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.
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”). In April, the court ruled on Microsoft and OpenAI’s motions to dismiss. The court agreed. Microsoft Corp., Opinion at 17.
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.,
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. Following a contentious discovery period, defendants in Anthropic moved for summary judgment and asserted a fair use defense on March 27, 2025.
But what exactly is threatening movie theaters in 2025? 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] 3, 2025), [link] [3] J. 2, 2025), [link] 131 (1948). [6]
by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy With as much scraping as is happening for AI training and enhancement these days, it’s amazing to me that there aren’t more lawsuits happening over scraping. 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.
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. 28, 2025) Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme Another N.D.
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.
Distribution The court says “the Forms were accessible at the URLs that plaintiff located. ” However, the court says the plaintiff has to allege actual downloading, not just the mere possibility. ” The court also rejects an implied license defense using an overly restrictive test. ” Citing Bell v.
In 2025, a political wave of deregulation stands to change how environmental law functions. Supreme Court cases and political movements can change this area of legal practice in the coming year. The legal landscape for environmental lawyers in 2025 Environmental law is a growing and fast-moving area in 2025.
Even though the legal system punished the wrongdoers, the lawsuits continue. The district court dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirms every point of the district court’s decision. The court says that Grindr’s claim is not a specific promise, is too general to be enforced (I guess it’s like puffery?)
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.
The court preliminarily enjoined the law in 2023. Rather than address whether the social media platforms are engaging in expressive activity, the court focuses on the laws effects on users: Act 689 forecloses access to social media for those minors whose parents do not consent to the minors use of social media. Scrutiny Level.
This guide breaks down the most important personal injury statistics for 2025, going beyond the numbers to show you how these trends can improve your strategic decisions, help you set realistic client expectations, and ultimately deliver better results. Plaintiffs in federal court received an average of $75,000 in damages ( NOLO ).
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”). In the meantime, the May 2025 Report offers the only guidance to date from the Office regarding how it sees the question of fair use in the context of generative AI.
” The court summarizes: “In response to the Garniers numerous critical and often repetitive comments on the Trustees social media pages, the Trustees deleted or hid the Garniers comments. Prior blog posts on the district court and Ninth Circuit rulings. O’Connor-Ratcliff , 2025 WL 1387929 (9th Cir.
This is a confusing lawsuit that has been through several names, including “Sarah v. ” The court previously described the core allegations: The plaintiffs allege that Onision “ran several YouTube channels” that “targeted minor audiences” and allowed Onision to “groom and lure underage girls.”
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