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.
Until this course of litigation is resolved, the parties remain categorically opposed: defendants seek to maximize the training data available to their algorithms, while plaintiffs livelihood depends on exclusive ownership and control of their IP. However, in its current iteration, opt-out schemes do not truly allow rightsholders to opt out.
“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.
In an effort to curb mass arbitration, Ticketmaster sought to switch arbitration service providers to New Era ADR, including for past ticket purchases. New Era incorporated some defense-favorable provisions to its mass arbitration provision. The Ninth Circuit holds those provisions go too far and are procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
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 Plaintiffs further allege that D.G.s gaming has resulted in serious harm, including emotional distress, lost friends, and problems in school. from liability. YOLO , MP v.
This is the post-SCOTUS remand of Moody v. To dispose of various motions, the court must construe the statutory term “social media platform.” ” Florida’s statutory definition: Social media platform means any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider that: 1.
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.
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.” This doctrinal move doesn’t work.
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.
Less distressing but equally true (if only marginally less dated a cultural reference) is that the Internet is for porn. While online services inevitably get used for both types of content, service providers tend to treat them very differently, given that adult pornography is generally legal in the U.S. whereas CSAM is illegal everywhere.
— I think Reddit’s strongest argument here is the tortious interference claim, namely that Anthropic’s failure to follow the official protocols with scraping potentially impacts its ability to comply with its own terms of service with its users (to the extent that Anthropic is not following those protocols). That’s the rub.
AI hallucinations occur when a large language model (LLM) generates false or misleading information that, on its face, appears plausible. Below, well explain what hallucinations are, review the courts decision to sanction Morgan & Morgans lawyers, and provide tips for mitigating risk when working with AI for legal research.
The panel summarizes: “Because Does state law claims necessarily implicate Grindrs role as a publisher of third-party content, 230 bars those claims. Doe fails to state a plausible TVPRA claim, so Doe cannot invoke a statutory exception to 230 immunity.” and is “a description of its moderation policy.”
There are dozens of cases pending against AI developers stemming from their use of copyrighted works to train generative AI models. In response, developers have uniformly asserted that such use is a fair use. The new Registrar could revise the report, or never make it official in any form. Many uses, however, will fall somewhere in between. [2]
This decision largely rejects the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which will induce more plaintiff lawyers to bring more cases. 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. Character.ai
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 panel says wearily that “This action is Loomers fourth lawsuit about this alleged conspiracy” but sidesteps the obvious res judicata problem.
TikTok defended on Section 230 grounds. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek to hold defendants liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions. This case was originally transferred into the Northern District of California MDL , but the plaintiffs exited the MDL and pursued their own standalone action.
But, outside the Roblox platform, there are a number of online casinos that take wagers in Robux. Those online casinos entice minors to come gamble away their Robux. Roblox processes that transaction, and it takes a cut. Some of the plaintiffs’ claims survive Roblox’s motion to dismiss. Statutory Standing. Machine Zone and Taylor v.
” [FN: the factors are: (1) “the nature of the act assisted,” (2) the “amount of assistance” provided, (3) whether the defendant was “present at the time” of the principal tort, (4) the defendant’s “relation to the tortious actor,” (5) the “defendant’s state of mind,” and (6) the “duration of the assistance” given.
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.
But even if the plaintiff connected the dots, With respect to defendant’s possession of contrary information, the amended complaint has, at best, plausibly alleged that defendant did not know if the photograph was of Zilis and failed to verify the accuracy of the photograph, despite knowing what Zilis looked like.
The district court dismissed the contributory claim because the defendants didn’t materially contribute to the infringement. The court says the defendants waived any fair use defense by briefing it inadequately. For unexplained reasons, it does not appear that the defendants are invoking the 512 defense.
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. Grindr , Cohen v.
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 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. [These are my rough-draft talk notes from a recent workshop of trademark law professors.]
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.
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. So close. Cites to McCarthy v. ccBill , LW v.
Substack defended on Section 230 grounds. Finally, Smith claimed that Substack’s “sheer failure to respond to [his] multiple reports, queries, and complaints was negligence.” Substack appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. ” In July 2023, it made a post entitled “ Oliver D. Google in response.
Snapchat successfully defends on Section 230 grounds. Similarly, allegations of failure to warn of an application’s potential danger do not remove the “publisher” status. Similarly, allegations of failure to warn of an application’s potential danger do not remove the “publisher” status. cite to LW v. Cite to Doe v.
by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy Last year, the most important case in the history of web scraping— hiQ Labs, Inc. LinkedIn Corp. hiQ Labs I, 938 F.3d 3d 985 at 1005 ; hiQ Labs II at 43. Bright Data allegedly scraped Meta’s public data and sold it to its clients. Meta sent Bright Data a series of cease-and-desist notices telling it to stop.
“Duffer seeks to hold Nextdoor, a service provider, liable for its failure to remove material posted by users of its website. . “Duffer seeks to hold Nextdoor, a service provider, liable for its failure to remove material posted by users of its website. Nextdoor appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
It lives in the past and is the bastard child of perceived mistakes and failures. One quality is more important than any other in having the life you want: confidence. Confidence is ultimately more important than resilience, talent or even intelligence for having the life you want. Self-Doubt Is a Wrecking Ball to Confidence.
On May 11th, the court ruled on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss , granting in part and denying in part. GitHub, Inc. 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. The court also held that plaintiffs were permitted to proceed pseudonymously.
[This is one of those opinions that is a slog to blog because the court’s statutory analysis made my head hurt. If this opinion confuses you, welcome to the club. FWIW, “Slog to Blog” would make a good band name.] Stratics Networks offers ringless voicemail and VOIP services. ” [Note 1: I HATE getting voicemails. OK boomer.
They must also learn of the risks and issues with AI and how to detect and defend when it is being used. They must also learn of the risks and issues with AI and how to detect and defend when it is being used. However, technology is moving at lightning speed, and keeping pace is no longer good enough in a Legal 3.0 What is Legal 3.0
It may even get to the point where the media covers the case which can change public perception of the defendant and negatively impact both personal and professional relationships. 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.
August 9, 2023) This case involves StubHub’s obligations to provide refunds due to COVID cancellations. 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. Citing Sellers v. The court sees it differently.
Koerner Endowed Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School [See part 1 about defendant opt-outs and part 2 about defendant defaults.] Eight months after filing, the first two Copyright Claims Board (CCB) Final Determinations have been handed down. Mitrakos, 22-CCB-0035 , February 15, 2023, and Oppenheimer v. Let’s take a look.
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.
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. And what are some best practices for attorneys making virtual appearances?
Since the implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) 18 months ago, more than 75 lawsuits have been filed seeking damages using the Act’s private cause of action. The CCPA provides a cause of action to “[a]ny consumer whose nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information.
For example, an allegation of failure to act with competence might be that you failed to interview enough or certain witnesses in a case. Detailed notes of every contact, attempt to contact, conversation or correspondence with every witness in a case will help protect you when defending against such allegations. In all likelihood, no.
In this motion, the case gets dismissed on the grounds like an improper venue or failure to state claims. Motion practice shapes the case, and if you want to handle your cases more professionally, understanding motion practice is essential. Legal motion management is an essential aspect of the litigation process.
The median cost of defending a legal malpractice lawsuit is $100,000. The median cost of defending a legal malpractice lawsuit is $100,000. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in severe penalties, including suspension or revocation of licensure. Lawsuits can happen to anyone, even the most skilled lawyers.
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