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
Redbubble and the Sunfrog cases because the defendants in those cases exhibited sufficiently more indicia of controland presented more opportunity for consumer confusion by using their own tags and labels. Schedule A Defendants Judge Rejects SAD Scheme JoinderToyota v. The court distinguishes Atari v. the $17M asset freeze).
” Purposeful availment can occur if a “defendant (1) commit[s] an intentional act, that is (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) which causes harm that the defendant knows will be suffered in the forum state.” The first factor is sometimes further subdivided into three subfactors reflecting the Calder v.
Imagine your law firm takes on a new corporate client, only to discover later that your team previously advised their competitor in a related case. Defend the Firm’s Reputation and Client Trust A single conflict oversight can irreparably damage a firm’s credibility. You worry about compliance gaps in your current process.
So where exactly is the Ninth Circuit’s law on this topic? 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.
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.
G6 invoked the TOS, so G6 bore the burden of showing that the plaintiff agreed to it: Defendant has failed to provide adequate evidence to establish which version of the sign-up page Plaintiff used when she signed up for her Motel 6 account. G6 Hospitality LLC , 2025 WL 1254382 (C.D. Case Citation : Snyder v.
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.
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. Cal 1/17/2025). [4]
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 As a result, I expect that defendants in other online addiction cases will be highlighting this opinion in their defenses. addiction and Plaintiffs injuries.
” 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.” Defendant-victimization is also a main justification for broadly applicable anti-SLAPP laws.
For example, Florida argued that it didn’t intend to imminently enforce all of the law. Baffled by the argument, the court notes (emphasis added): The defendants also note that Florida Statutes 501.2041(9) and 106.072(5) say the Florida provisions cannot be enforced to the extent inconsistent with federal law and 47 U.S.C.
Lack of Access Courts have consistently held that posting works on the Internet, without more, doesn’t ensure that the defendant had “access” to them for purposes of copying-in-fact. But even the narrower standard invites a lot of tendentious data-mining about the defendants’ social media activities.
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. Anthropic PBC 1) Opinion denying a preliminary injunction , 2025 WL 904333 (N.D. Perlmutter , No. 23-5233 (D.C.
In other words, the plaintiffs are trying to use venerable legal doctrines to create a common-law notice-and-takedown scheme. Thus, to remedy the alleged defect, Defendants would have to change the content posted on their platforms. Such allegations fail to state a claim under products liability law. Strict Products Liability.
The defendant invoked the arbitration clause in its TOS. In a footnote, the court adds: Although not required under Ninth Circuit law, using a clickwrap agreement would provide a website operator with greater assurance that the agreement will be enforced. 2025 WL 948118 (N.D. March 28, 2025) BONUS: Edwards v.
Flixbus successfully defends by saying that the plaintiff consented to the disclosures via its TOS. 2025 WL 1592961 (S.D. June 5, 2025) More Posts on the Pixel Cases Meta Pixels Case Dismissed by Second Circuit–Solomon v. Google (Catch Up Post) Think You Understand Online Trespass to Chattels Law? cite to the Oberstein v.
DistroKid defends against the direct copyright infringement claim using the volitional conduct argument. However, direct copyright infringement is strict liability, so the volitional conduct provides an important “fast lane” to survive cases that otherwise look dangerous to defendants. Case Citation : White v.
On January 22, Booking.coms renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) was granted. By the time trial rolled around, this case involved only an Irish plaintiff (Ryanair) and a Dutch defendant (Booking.com B.V.). And so it comes as no surprise that there were some post-trial fireworks in this case.
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. And yet, in 2025, Modlily actually shut down an Amazon merchant by asserting trademark infringement based on post-domain URL paths.
Learn about some of the big technology issues that are trending AOPs for 2025, and how these are developing into important practice areas for lawyers. As generative AI continues to roll out everywhere from Google search results to chatbots on law firm websites, more legal action over the training material is sure to arise.
The plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit against Capital One based on Washington’s anti-spam law and related claims. Capital One defended on Section 230 grounds (among others). 2025 WL 606194 (W.D. 25, 2025) The post Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to “Refer-a-Friend” Text Message–Jensen v.
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. Binello , 2025 WL 892971 (N.D. Case Citation : Robinson v.
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]
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. Dont miss 2025's Clio Cloud Conference taking place October 16-17 in Boston, MA.
Masters Conference Chicago | May 20, 2025 Hosted by Seyfarth Shaw LLP | Presented by Infinnium As the legal landscape continues to involve many new communication data as evidence, the conversation around data governance and eDiscovery is becoming more urgent and more strategic.
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). Play stupid TOS games, win stupid TOS prizes.
2025 WL 1635956 (E.D. June 9, 2025) More Posts on the Pixel Cases Clickwrap Formed Even When a Consumer Has Limited Time to Act–Washington v. Google (Catch Up Post) Think You Understand Online Trespass to Chattels Law? Tenet appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Case Citation : Doe v.
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. Offer to present on topics that intersect law and finance. Connect with Margaret Grisdela on LinkedIn.
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. Microsoft Corp.,
The Guidance applies to entities that are covered by Part 500 ( i.e., entities with a license under the New York Banking Law, Insurance Law or Financial Services Law), but it provides valuable direction to all companies for managing the new cybersecurity risks associated with AI.
18] They also argue that Honey is intentionally interfering with contractual relations, a cause of action under tort law. [19] However, when contracting with merchants, creators cannot ensure that their commission will come back to them, and typical merchants do not have strict cookie policies that defend against injected cookies. [22]
The court says that’s not the right standard: Walters has not identified any case holding that a publisher is negligent as a matter of defamation law merely because it knows it can make a mistake, and for good reason. should the defendant have adopted new or niche innovations that work better than prevailing standards?)
The defendant Nivoda is an online retailer[FN] that displays how its prices are discounted compared to the Rapaport prices (see screenshot). ”] This lawsuits raises one of the venerable but surprisingly vexing copyright law questions: when is a price copyrightable? May 2, 2025). This case involves diamond prices.
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. Next Level Apps Technology FZCO , 2025 WL 551866 (N.D. ” PREACH!
Following a contentious discovery period, defendants in Anthropic moved for summary judgment and asserted a fair use defense on March 27, 2025. Defendants in Meta opposed plaintiffs’ motion and asserted an affirmative fair use defense on March 24, 2025 and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2025.
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. Capra of Fordham School of Law. (If 24 Report).
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. 11 Downsides Include: Exploiting the System : Some defense law firms actively market the Mental health Diversion program as a way to avoid criminal prosecution. A7 M49 2006.
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 evidence shows that Defendants were on-notice that their marketplaces contained infringing listingsPlaintiff and their agents issued infringement complaints on dozens of such listings.
2025 WL 660250 (N.D. 28, 2025) Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme Another N.D. Schedule A Defendants Judge Rejects SAD Scheme JoinderToyota v. Schedule A Defendants Another Judge Balks at SAD Scheme JoinderXie v. Schedule A Defendants Judge Hammers SEC for Lying to Get an Ex Parte TROSEC v. Seven West Media Ltd.,
Relevant Federal Law: Balancing User Privacy with Child Protection In the 1980s, Congress passed a law called the Stored Communications Act (SCA) that created a statutory right of privacy for Americans digital files and communications. NCMEC routes received reports to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
And there is a legal regime dedicated to that issue, and it’s called copyright law. — I hate that we’re still doing trespass to chattels claims in 2025. To put it another way: if Reddit wins the breach of contract claim based on this allegation, it will completely blow up online contract formation law as we currently know it.
California SB 976, “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act,” is one of the multitudinous laws that pretextually claim to protect kids online. Like many such laws nowadays, it’s a gish-gallop compendium of online censorship ideas: Age authentication! Parental consent! Mandatory transparency!
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. If the design is functional, it cannot be protected under trade dress law.
Calling all cyberlaw nerds: here is a bona fide “ Law of the Horse ” case. The plaintiff is an Oregon law firm practicing equine law. 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.
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