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
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.
The court’s reaction is predictable if chilling. Rather than turning the analysis on formation issues, the court strikes down Ticketmaster’s efforts as unconscionable–and the weak formation practices exacerbate the unconscionability problem. to be unenforceable, as individuals do not have inquiry notice.”
“several of her causes of action are based at least in part on the alleged failure to keep her account secure…and are therefore precluded by the Terms of Service and Terms of Use.” The Terms only state that Defendant may take certain actions in response to harmful conduct or violating content.” Google , Ebeid v.
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
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.
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.
Developers of artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems notched a victory last week when a federal judge dismissed claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) premised on the use of copyrighted works in AI training data, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show any concrete harm and therefore lacked standing to bring their claims.
But the rise in dupes has brought a corresponding rise in dupe lawsuits, or at least lawsuits that offer up defendants’ or consumers’ use of the term “dupe” as evidence of confusing similarity or intent to deceive. But “dupe” is a term that can mean a lot of different things , from legitimate alternatives to straight-up counterfeits.
Weve written extensively on how lawyers can use AI responsibly and, as yet another court decision is released addressing lawyers use of AI, its never been more important to understand the risks and limitations of AI use. How did the court respond to the hallucinations? Learn how it works. What are AI hallucinations?
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.
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.
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.
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”). Adding to the uncertainty, the day after the pre-publication report was released, the Trump administration dismissed the Register of Copyrights—a move she is challenging in court.
This decision largely rejects the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which will induce more plaintiff lawyers to bring more cases. Component Part Manufacturer The court allows the plaintiff to proceed on the argument that Google is a “component part manufacturer” of Character.ai Character.ai Character A.I.]
My blog post on the district court opinion (I focused on the 230 issue, but this ruling turns on the failure of the prima facie elements). The court says that allegation (and others) is too unspecific. Second, her track record in court is littered with futility. The panel says there’s no RICO “enterprise.”
The court summarizes: The plaintiffs commenced this action in connection with the death by suicide of 16 year old Chase Nasca on February 18, 2022 after he walked in front of a train. TikTok defended on Section 230 grounds. Among other points, the plaintiffs argued that TikTok should have age authenticated all users. Bytedance Ltd.,
The court summarizes the allegations: Roblox has a virtual currency designed for use on its platform called “Robux.” The court is unpersuaded. The court doesn’t appreciate this argument: these are children we’re talking about. [A reminder that I don’t do April Fools’ pranks.] Statutory Standing.
Supreme Court [FN]. Twitter won its decision unanimously, and the Supreme Court per curiam punted the Google case back to the 9th Circuit with the clear message that the plaintiffs should lose. The Supreme Court says that the term “aiding and abetting” in the statute should be interpreted using the common law.
The Court Opinion Greer was a target of one of Kiwi Farms’ attacks. “Kiwi Farms users provided a Google Drive link to a full copy of Mr. Greer’s book.” The district court dismissed the contributory claim because the defendants didn’t materially contribute to the infringement. CloudFlare’s block ).
The court concludes that this as a surprisingly easy Section 230 dismissal: ICS Provider. “Courts within the Second Circuit have routinely found that social media websites and online matching services are interactive computer services.” ” Cites to Mosha v. . ” Cites to Mosha v. Facebook , Herrick v.
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. It matches contractors with homeowners.
Those items got indexed in Google and appeared in Benedict’s vanity searches. “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. . ” Defamation.
The court dismisses Bloom’s lawsuit against US Weekly. The court says these allegations aren’t enough to satisfy the actual malice standard. Elon Musk “secretly” fathered twins with his subordinate Shivon Zilis. When the news came to light, it triggered a “tabloid feeding frenzy.” Defamation.
The SAD Scheme involves a trademark owner suing dozens/hundreds of defendants using a sealed complaint, getting an ex parte TRO, and then having the online marketplaces freeze the defendants’ accounts and money. First, the trademark rules on the street can differ widely from the doctrines drawn up in appellate courts.
Substack defended on Section 230 grounds. To get around this, Smith argued that blackmail is a crime, but the court cited Coffee v. Finally, Smith claimed that Substack’s “sheer failure to respond to [his] multiple reports, queries, and complaints was negligence.” ” In July 2023, it made a post entitled “ Oliver D.
However, with scant followup media attention, this lawsuit (filed in August, dismissed in December) rocket-docketed to failure faster than remanufactured printer cartridges run out of ink. * * * Note: The litigation GoFundMe page is still up. They have raised a total of $150 of their $500k goal. Cites to McCarthy v. Amazon , Ratermann v.
After two trips to the 9th Circuit, a remand from the Supreme Court, and nearly six years of motions and posturing, the outcome of the litigation was a permanent injunction against hiQ, a win for LinkedIn, and insolvency for scraper hiQ Labs. LinkedIn Corp. hiQ Labs I, 938 F.3d 3d 985 at 1005 ; hiQ Labs II at 43. hiQ Labs I, 938 F.3d
Snapchat successfully defends on Section 230 grounds. ” [A reminder that court-ordered identity and age verification requirements likely violate the First Amendment; the other claims may do so as well.] Similarly, allegations of failure to warn of an application’s potential danger do not remove the “publisher” status.
28, 2020): There are facts from which a jury could determine that Defendants created and/or developed website content making the immunity under Section 230 of the CDA inapplicable and thus summary judgment is not appropriate. There is evidence Defendants’ conduct exceeded standard publication decisions. ” * Doe v.
On May 11th, the court ruled on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss , granting in part and denying in part. On May 11th, the court ruled on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss , granting in part and denying in part. The court also held that plaintiffs were permitted to proceed pseudonymously. GitHub, Inc.
The court summarizes the plaintiff’s allegations: Plaintiff alleges that in October, 2020, he received a negative review on Nextdoor from a former customer. “Duffer seeks to hold Nextdoor, a service provider, liable for its failure to remove material posted by users of its website. . ” The court cites Force v.
[This is one of those opinions that is a slog to blog because the court’s statutory analysis made my head hurt. The first question the court must resolve is whether ringless voicemails qualify as “telephone calls” for purposes of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices.
The district court said that the buyers who made their purchases on the website had to go to arbitration, but the buyers who made their purchases on their mobile devices could stay in court. The court says it’s immaterial that there is a potentially long time delay between user registration and the purchases.
Koerner Endowed Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School [See part 1 about defendant opt-outs and part 2 about defendant defaults.] Consistent with the CCB’s small claims court ethos, the case involved both a pro se claimant and respondent. Mitrakos, 22-CCB-0035 , February 15, 2023, and Oppenheimer v. Let’s take a look.
While telephone appearances have been common for many years, the COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a new era for court proceedings with remote participants. Now, many courtrooms allow video conferencing and other mechanisms to enable virtual appearances by attorneys. What technology is needed to make virtual court proceedings work?
The Consequences of Frivolous Lawsuits Waste of Time and Resources Frivolous lawsuits clog up the court system and increase the backlog of cases that are waiting to be resolved. Not to mention, it’s costly to defend yourself against a frivolous claim. Not to mention, it’s costly to defend yourself against a frivolous claim.
In this Debevoise Data Blog post, we offer practical tips for reducing CCPA risk based on a review of the cases filed to date and the treatment of those cases in the courts. The CCPA provides a cause of action to “[a]ny consumer whose nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information. In Rahman v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., Marriott Int’l, Inc.,
Failure to do so may result in a range of unwanted consequences from the exclusion of evidence to disciplinary action. Failure to do so may result in a range of unwanted consequences from the exclusion of evidence to disciplinary action. Lawyers have an ethical duty under Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct (ILRPC) 1.6 Id., ¶ 119.
Legal motions allow parties to assert their rights, and seek relief from the court regarding certain cases. They can also present arguments in front of the court with the help of legal motions. They can also present arguments in front of the court with the help of legal motions. This motion asks the court to dismiss the case.
Here is the latest faculty scholarship appearing in the University of Wisconsin Law School Legal Studies Research Papers series found on SSRN. With minimal guidance from legislatures or courts, community supervision agencies set the policies that govern the presentence investigation and report process.
Failure to fully understand legal processes and the value they bring to your organization may lead to incidentally blocking revenue growth or putting your organization at risk. Courtroom litigation If a lawsuit is initiated against your company, it’s up to legal to prepare all materials to defend the company and minimize damage.
He calls out Twitter for its bad choice: This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech…X Corp. As a result, the court finds that much of the lawsuit is a SLAPP. By declaring the lawsuit a SLAPP, the court concludes that Twitter misused the court system in an attempt to suppress CCDH’s speech.
There are two critically important cases over “social media addiction” pending in California state court and as an MDL in the federal Northern District of California. It is an all-out brawl in federal court, with no-expense-spared battles over each and every picayune litigation issue.
With the CAS’s demise, both sides essentially bet that the courts would side with them. The appeals court rejected the vicarious claims but upheld the contributory claims. Vicarious Infringement The appeals court says that Cox lacked the requisite “direct financial interest” in subscribers’ infringements.
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