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
This lawsuit relates to an episode of the TV show Evil Lives Here called “I Invited Him In,” which discusses an NY serial killer named Nathaniel White. The court agrees with Microsoft. ’…the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment finding Microsoft immune from Mr. Mich. 2013 WL 664231 (E.D.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. Do courts fully reopen or not? Also last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a pilot project to permit “legal paraprofessionals” to provide legal services in certain matters.
Because of this, it has fallen to the courts to determine how the ADA applies to websites. The courts have looked to Title III of the ADA, which requires that every owner, lessor, or operator of a “place of public accommodation” provide equal access to users who meet the ADA’s standards for disability. population has a disability.
But that undersells the level of inconsistency in courts’ interpretations of the law of copyright preemption. At the circuit court level, the law of copyright preemption of contracts is a circuit split-plus, with at least two and as many as four differentiating positions on what might constitute preemption. 2d 426, 433 (8th Cir.1993)
16] Companies accomplish this by first suing generic-manufacturing companies for patent infringement, and then settling the lawsuit by paying them to stay out of the market in what is known as a reverse-payment settlement. [17] 19] The lawsuit ended in a settlement with Gilead agreeing to pay Teva, the supposed infringer, $1.5
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. Do courts fully reopen or not? Also last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a pilot project to permit “legal paraprofessionals” to provide legal services in certain matters.
And this is one that the US Supreme Court has recognized is not really a bright line, in the case called Carpenter vs. United States from 2018. This is a case where the Supreme Court held that the government needed to get a warrant in order to obtain the cell phone locations of a person over a period of time.
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.
Congress’ statutory ban was misguided and counterproductive; the Supreme Court accepted Congress’ national security pretext way too credulously; Biden and Trump both disregarded the law; and Congress shrugged its shoulders at the administration’s dereliction. Within 10 years, that outcome seems inevitable.
It was unveiled nationally in 2013. It’s been used nationally since 2013. These are individuals if they have a credible claim for relief from removal, they have every reason to show up in immigration court for their hearings, these are the things that a risk tool, ostensibly measures. It was piloted in 2011–2012.
The state appellate court disagrees. In addition to that flaw, the court says that Armslists allegations of jawboning dont rise to NRA v. I support the court’s decision, but I’m unhappy with the conduct of our taxpayer-funded representatives. Meta COVID Skeptics Anti-Jawboning Lawsuit FailsChangizi v.
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.
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