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
But this new era of AI has not come without controversy, as authors and rights holders have launched waves of litigation against the companies that trained and released generative AI models, as well as their investors and affiliates, alleging violations of intellectual property rights. 1] Proving Defendants Use of Training Data Inputs.
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 case is still being litigated. .” ” The case is still being litigated. Garland , No.
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]
” 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.
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. What Happened?
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. Action Steps for Legal Teams So what can organizations do today?
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.
However, the court says that’s essentially a doctrinal bait-and-switch: plaintiffs actually object “to Defendants’ decisions, after receiving Plaintiffs’ reports, to remove or not remove certain videos; [not] to the functionality of the reporting tool itself.” removal of the reported videos. .” Negligence.
Forensic accounting plays a critical role in business litigation. 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. But litigators see a lot of generalists.
Background on the Anthropic and Meta Litigations In both Anthropic and Meta , authors brought suits alleging that LLM developers pirated their copyrighted works and subsequently used them to train the companies’ proprietary LLMs. Just one day later, on June 25, 2025, Judge Chhabria handed down a decision in Meta , which cited Anthropic.
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.
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.
Capital One defended on Section 230 grounds (among others). Section 230 wasn’t a main issue in most of those litigation battles, and it doesn’t work here. 2025 WL 606194 (W.D. 25, 2025) The post Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to “Refer-a-Friend” Text Message–Jensen v. See this roundup.
An allegation that “a defendant filed false Amazon counterfeit reports” is sufficient to state a claim. This is true even if the defendants made its associated fact claims to Amazon “under penalty of perjury.” 2025 WL 1226629 (S.D.N.Y. ” Um, no. .” ” Um, no. Focus Camera, Inc.
If those disclaimers are sufficient to negate defamation liability, then this litigation genre is moot. should the defendant have adopted new or niche innovations that work better than prevailing standards?) that can help turn litigation into lawfare. May 19, 2025). what are the standards? Case Citation : Walters v.
VoiceScript Ai.Law Elevator Pitch: Provides AI-generated litigation documents, from pleadings to discovery. We are the first AI-driven platform to focus specifically on drafting litigation documents. The substantial amount of time lawyers spend drafting documents during litigation. What makes you unique or innovative?
The court does award damages for the 512(f) claims in some of the cases based on the defendants counternotifications. This produces a relatively rare plaintiff win under 512(f), where plaintiff wins usually occur only when the defendants no-show. Ashgar, 2025 WL 822685 (N.D. March 13, 2025) Viral DRM LLC v.
Kilgore might need better legal advice on copyright law…but also, see my post on the Lenz case predicting that all 512(f) defendants had to do is say “yeah, I thought about fair use” and they would get a free pass. On January 6, 2025, the supervising judge summarily approved the magistrate judge’s recommendations.
The TRO language doesn’t purport to apply to YouTube, nor could it unless YouTube had also been named a defendant. Next Level Apps Technology FZCO , 2025 WL 551866 (N.D. Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) CaseAutomattic v.
Attorneys will also receive $150 per hour “for time reasonably expended out of court” (up from its previous minimum of $50 per hour) and maximum compensation for representing an indigent defendant of $10,000 (up from its previous maximum of $5,000). The amendments are effective on Jan. Rule 299 was last updated in 2006.
Plausible allegations that YouTube “generally benefitted from sex traffickers’ use of [its platform]” do not establish that YouTube’s “own conduct” violated section 1591 Case Citation : In re YouTube Trafficking Litigation , 2025 WL 1745759 (N.D. Omegle * Section 230 Helps Craigslist Defeat Sex Trafficking Case–LH v.
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. So, what does this data mean for you?
This decision largely rejects the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which will induce more plaintiff lawyers to bring more cases. One possible outcome is that intermediate plaintiff wins like this opinion offer false hope for the long-term success of this litigation genre. This footnote was such a strawman.
The court sides with the defendants as to the first CyberTip but not the second. In short, the court holds that the apparent CSAM tag for the first images hash match was enough to trigger the defendants reporting obligations and shield them from liability, but the unconfirmed CSAM tag for the second image was not.
18, 2025) Prior Blog Posts About Grindr Section 230 Defeats Underage Users Lawsuit Against GrindrDoll v. Snap * The Ninth Circuits FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th CircuitDoe v. Case Citation : Doe v. Grindr, Inc. , 24-475 (9th Cir.
2025 WL 89191 (S.D.N.Y. 14, 2025) This cases involves two videos, one involving Michael Jordan that someone posted to Twitter (seemingly without permission?), Mediaite LLC, 2025 WL 89226 (S.D.N.Y. 2025 WL 208768 (W.D. 14, 2025) Fedun posted three videos to social media and then assigned the copyrights to Lynk Media.
To date, despite years of litigation, those cases have resulted in just one opinion: a District of Delaware order that arose outside of the generative AI context and rejected the fair use defense as a matter of law. As noted above, the Trump administration dismissed the Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter on May 10, 2025.
In 2025, expect activity against these large entities to continue. Guidance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and expert commentary implies more of the same in antitrust in 2025. Antitrust attorneys defend companies against these claims. The post Antitrust Law Landscape in 2025 appeared first on Martindale-Avvo.
Six4Three’s non-contract claims are publisher/speaker claims: defendants purported liability under each cause of action is based on the decision to remove developer access to certain user content, which as the trial court explained, is akin to the act of de-publishing. 2025 WL 783250 (Cal. March 12, 2025). Facebook, Inc.
Starting January 1, 2025, the law applies when the services have “actual knowledge” that users are minors. After reviewing the CDA/COPA litigation battles, the court summarizes: “a First Amendment analysis of age assurance requirements entails a careful evaluation of how those requirements burden speech. Bonta , No.
” To show the requisite coordination among the parties, Loomer argued that the defendants had the common goals of making money, acquiring influence over other enterprises and entities, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. March 27, 2025). Prior Blog Posts on Loomer : Laura Loomer Loses Litigation (Again)Loomer v.
See, e.g., Guidestar , GoFundMe , CharityNavigator (maybe these services are Watts’ next defendants?). The Daily Kos , 2025 WL 855280 (Nev. March 18, 2025) The post Are You Ready for MAGA to Weaponize Anti-Doxxing Statutes?–Watts In other words, Watts appears to have repeatedly self-doxxed. And for what benefit?
A prior ruling summarized the facts the court describes as “harrowing”: In April 2022, Defendant Bendjy Charles (Charles) and Romelus raped Plaintiff. 2025 WL 336741 (S.D. 30, 2025) MORE ON DOE V. Defendants require all videos to contain tags. Charles and Romelus filmed each other while they raped Plaintiff.
735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics , 2025 WL 1462185 (N.J. May 22, 2025) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * Ninth Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword AdsLerner & Rowe v. Supreme Ct. 1-800 Contacts * Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad PurchasesLasoff v.
This new case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order, and their parents.
If the YOLO promise-based exclusion to Section 230 stands up, plaintiffs will have no problem tendentiously parsing a defendant’s site disclosures to find something– anything –as the anchor for a promise-based claim that bypasses Section 230. As a result, Section 230 is on the extinction watch list in 2025.
2025 WL 1249157 (D. April 29, 2025) This is a pro se/in pro per case. Plaintiff also does not allege that any Defendant performed a traditionally public function. 2025 WL 1237550 (N.D. April 28, 2025) Another pro se/in pro per case. The account termination lawsuits keep coming , so I’ll keep blogging them.
Nor has Plaintiff provided factual allegations that could support an inference that there is a close nexus between Defendant, a private entity, and the state, such that Defendant’s actions are attributable to the state. WeChat (USA), 2025 WL 1126477 (E.D.N.Y. Cites to Forbes v. Facebook and Fehrenbach v. Kennedy Jr.
2025 WL 1314179 (N.D. May 6, 2025) Prior blog posts ( 1 , 2 ). The court says this isn’t a dispositive issue because “Judge Coogler would have come to the conclusion that Defendants were content providers and thus not entitled to immunity under Section 230 even if he had not considered Anderson.” 2025 ; Doe v.
As discussed in the implications section below, a reminder that lengthy litigation is a feature, not a bug, to copyright owners because it functions as lawfare to drain its opponents of resources. Capitol Records (the successor to EMI) sent its first cease-and-desist letter to Vimeo in 2008 and sued Vimeo for copyright infringement in 2009.
How can the “back-office business services” vendor be deemed the proximate cause of any harms with two other defendants in front of it? For the plaintiffs to win against Salesforce (the tertiary defendant), they will need to show that the primary and secondary defendants committed legal violations (i.e.,
The court grants both defendants summary judgment. McAleer , 2025 WL 1564869 (D.N.J. June 3, 2025) Selected Jawboning Posts Facebook Defeats Armslist’s Account Termination Lawsuit–Armslist v. Missouri Jawboning Defendants Are 6-for-6 in the Ninth Circuit–Hart v. Hwang’s organization sued Newsmatics and McAleer.
The revised bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in February 2025. Recall that The Heritage Foundations Project 2025 mandate explicitly calls for the elimination of online pornography. Project 2025 and its enforcers have already sought to collapse LGBTQ+ expression into a broader campaign against pornography.
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