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
Did Zucks definition of free expression just get even broader? Simon Sharwood Meta allegedly downloaded material from an online source thats been sued for breaching copyright, because it wanted the material to train its AI models, according to a new court filing. Several similar suits are in motion, targeting different AI players.
The court says the plaintiff had standing: “Salazar’s alleged injury stems from the unauthorized disclosure of his personal viewing information, which is closely related to at least one common-law analog traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts: public disclosure of private facts.”
Why Litigation Experience Matters in a Patent Attorney One of the most overlooked but highly valuable assets in a patent attorney is litigation experience specifically, experience arguing patent cases in federal court. It could be the difference between owning IP that looks good on paper and IP that actually protects your market.
The exact definition of a trade secret is governed by state law and, therefore varies from state to state. Prepare for Litigation Draft contracts that account for AI-generated trade secrets Work with counsel to ensure NDAs and IP clauses hold up in court If a breach happens, move fast—evidence disappears quickly 5.
PageSpeed scores can fluctuate across tests, as these tools provide optimization recommendations rather than definitive ranking factors. Additionally, failing to comply with accessibility standards can lead to legal consequences, as courts have ruled that ADA requirements apply to websites.
Legal assistants may perform tasks such as sorting or filing documents, preparing appointments and calendars, including trail schedules, and contacting clients and all other parties to lawsuits. This can include preparing or handling legal papers and even assisting an attorney in court.
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 rival bought competitive keyword ads (the court uses the term “conquesting,” which I objected to here ) but didn’t include the third-party trademark in the ad copy. The trademark owner sued the advertiser for trademark infringement and lost in the district court. Prior blog post on the district court ruling.
The court is unclear about how Joybuy operates, but it appears that Joybuy (via the entity JD) runs its own online marketplace. This is a rare attack on the capacious definition of a service provider, and it did not succeed. Shockingly, the plaintiff didnt contest any of the other 512 elements, so Joybuy defeats the lawsuit.
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 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. Without exceptions for some publishers, any definition of social media is overbroad because it will functionally apply to the full universe of UGC.
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.
Online addiction lawsuits are proliferating across the country, a trend that will continue so long as plaintiffs think they can win. What happens at the end of these lawsuits remains to be seen. As for Google’s aiding/abetting, the court points again to Google’s provision of cloud services to Character.ai.
The Supreme Court struck down the CDA in 1997 in Reno v. The laws are hard to inventory or track because they are multitudinous and have heterogeneous structures and definitions. For example, Texas passed a law extremely similar to the CDA and essentially dared the courts to strike it down.
It amuses me to see the often whimsical world of emoji juxtaposed with the stereotype of stodgy, old fashioned courts. With that topic and others, I really admire your straightforward take on what’s going on and where the courts should be going.” You can definitely do better than this!
Its definition of “disability” extends more broadly than the conditions described by IDEA.) In some cases, you also may be able to file a lawsuit in federal court.) However, courts tend to take a close look at these situations. If your child isn’t eligible for an IEP, you should ask whether Section 504 may cover them.
18] In a court filing requesting to keep the sum private, Tesla said it agreed to settle the case to “end years of litigation.” [19] 20] In the case of self-driving cars, there is no clear definition of who the driver is, which makes it difficult to determine the responsible party for an accident and its associated consequences. [21]
We used to see lawsuits like this 15+ years ago, but we don’t see them any more because they are so obviously doomed by Section 230. The court applies the standard three-part Section 230 test: ICS Provider. ” The court is confused. ” The court is confused. Whoa, what a flashback. LifelongLearning.
This is one of several ideologically motivated lawsuits against YouTube for allegedly engaging in “discriminatory” content moderation. But courts don’t always use facts like that for petard-hoisting, instead grounding their rulings in legal doctrines and admissible evidence. Yet, the court bails YouTube out.
I remain unclear why the court granted cert in this case. The court’s exact reasoning will make a huge difference, and there are many ways it could go sideways. No publisher ever wants to use “neutral” tools because the mere act of publication is, by definition, not a neutral act.
The court says that three aspects of the contributory copyright infringement claim survive Twitter’s motion to dismiss. The court says the tweeter does any “transmitting,” not Twitter or the viewer. The court says the tweeter does any “transmitting,” not Twitter or the viewer. Time flies.]
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the laws baffled the justices due to their sprawling nature, confusing provisions, and misguided policy assumptions. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed to send the cases back to the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits for more careful review of the plaintiffs’ facial challenges to the laws.
Tomelleri (who has appeared on this blog before ) illustrates fishes (see court exhibit on the right). If that rings a bell, it’s because just yesterday I blogged on a DIFFERENT fish painter, DeYoung, who also brought an IP lawsuit against a print-on-demand service (Pixels). The supervising judge agrees. Volitional Conduct.
The answer should be simple, but it most definitely is not. This definition clearly deviates from the American concept of antitrust law, whose main goal is to “ensure that private agreements and actions do not interfere with free competition.” District Court for the Northern District of California in Epic Games, Inc.
eBay defeats the lawsuit. The court concludes that “to ‘sell’ an item one must either possess the physical item or its title,” neither of which eBay does. Presumably the downplayed language was designed to discourage class action lawsuits). Is eBay the “Seller”? This ruling resembles the US.
Is the attorneys’ fee shift motivating some or all of this lawsuit? Last year, ShutterStock won a very similar lawsuit in Steinmetz v. The court responds that image metadata isn’t subject to the broad industry consensus required by the statutory definition. The court says that demand didn’t confer actual knowledge.
There are more than 40 million lawsuits in the United states alone every year. And only 2% of those will ultimately proceed with a lawsuit. Contract and small claims cases comprise the bulk of the civil caseload, and unfortunately, most of these lawsuits are baseless claims, also known as frivolous lawsuits.
” Enigma challenged Malwarebytes’ classifications in court. ” Malwarebytes appealed the 9th Circuit’s ruling, first to the 9th Circuit en banc, and then to the US Supreme Court. ” Malwarebytes appealed the 9th Circuit’s ruling, first to the 9th Circuit en banc, and then to the US Supreme Court. (I
is one of the first major class-action lawsuits to dive into questions of online collection of “public data” and generative AI training data sets. 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.
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.
This lawsuit relates to a property foreclosure contested by the then-property owner, Choudhuri, who sued pro se. Zillow clearly meets the definition of an internet service provider.” ” This leads to an easy Section 230 dismissal. ICS Provider. ” Claim for Publishing Third-Party Content.
In an inappropriately brief 4-page ruling, the court denies the Alibaba defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court does briefly acknowledge the Second Circuit’s Business Casual v. The Business Casual court actually said YouTube didn’t have knowledge before receiving takedown notices.
I think CA AB 587 is clearly unconstitutional (start here ), but this particular lawsuit is hampered by the fact that none of the plaintiffs meet the statutory definition of “social media platforms.” With respect to these plaintiffs, the court easily concludes they lack standing. See my amicus brief on that point.
The court, however, focused on HIPAA’s explicit exemption for research purposes, which allows sharing of information to the extent that the identifiers are removed. Accordingly, the court held in favor of Google. However, besides Dinerstein , this space has not seen many other lawsuits.
The court, however, focused on HIPAA’s explicit exemption for research purposes, which allows sharing of information to the extent that the identifiers are removed. Accordingly, the court held in favor of Google. However, besides Dinerstein, this space has not seen many other lawsuits.
It was an audaciously mockable pivot…and yet, the district court judge shockingly bought the argument. Unfortunately, the court expresses this intuitively obvious result in a baroque, technical, and inaccessible opinion. The district court said the “website” was the chattel. ” That’s true.
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. Sadlock v.
The court dismissed all claims on summary judgment except contributory trademark infringement and counterfeiting. The Ninth Circuit overturns much of the lower court’s resolution. similarly, the court says that the rightsowner can put the defendant on notice of “specific infringers.” Permanent Injunction.
Instead, Hunley and Brauer filed a class-action lawsuit against Instagram, alleging that Instagram was vicariously liable for, or was liable for encouraging or contributing to, the alleged direct infringement by others, by providing an “embedding” tool that easily could be used to facilitate public display of their photos. Supreme Court.
In July of 2023, designers Krista Perry, Larissa Martinez and Jay Baron filed a complaint in California federal court, alleging that Shein’s “egregious intellectual property infringement” is “baked into its business model.” We will vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit and any claims that are without merit.” What’s Next?
Despite UIRC’s copyright registrations, the court says the UIRC’s edits aren’t copyrightable: UIRC did not independently create most of the language in the documents at issue. We agree with the district court that the language UIRC did draft lacks the creative expression required for copyright protection.
Hospitals … were definitely not closed. I built a document automation app online to help people fight their tickets for free using a recent court decision that had come down in Manhattan. There were two other court decisions from just outside of the city that were persuasive as well. It all started with my wife and a pandemic.
The landscape began to shift in 2016 when the Supreme Court ( O’Bannon ) ruled that the NCAA’s bar on student-athletes profiting from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) violated federal antitrust law. The Carter/House/Hubbard Settlement’s Impact on NIL Several elements of the settlement directly impact NIL.
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