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
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.
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 ).
” In 2018, the state claimed Facebook violated the law, and Facebook stipulated to a $200k judgment. ” In 2018, the state claimed Facebook violated the law, and Facebook stipulated to a $200k judgment. In December 2024, the appeals court affirmed everything. The state sued Facebook again in 2020.
The district court initially dismissed all of the claims for their lack of merit, after discussing Snap’s Section 230 defense irresolutely. Assuming the court is right the move isn’t pretextual, it’s still a Pyrrhic victory for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs tried again, with the same result. Section 230. Negligence.
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.
With regard to Plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims, Section 230 immunity does not apply since the conduct at issue was Defendants’ conduct and not the conduct of third parties. ” * Doe v. Grant, 2021 Ariz. LEXIS 1327 (Az. Superior Ct. March 31, 2021). Puppies, 2020 Ariz. LEXIS 851 (Az. Superior Ct.
Consistent with the CCB’s small claims court ethos, the case involved both a pro se claimant and respondent. 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. Prutton, 22-CCB-0045 , February 28, 2023.
Even better, posting has enabled me to think through a doctrine (like failure to function ) or category of cases (like tagmark litigation) that I was already pondering, setting the initial groundwork for what would become a more extended study in the form of a law review article or essay. Note 1: all guest bloggers do it purely for the glory.
The ICO must obtain a court warrant to conduct a dawn raid. unlawfully obtaining personal data); and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of the failure or commission of the offence is to be found on the premises. What is a dawn raid? When can the ICO conduct a dawn raid?
million against telecommunications operator TIM for unsolicited marketing calls £20 million against British Airways for its 2018 data breach £18.4 million against Marriott for its 2018 data breach When you dig deeper though, two key points emerge. Meaningful differences in DPAs’ enforcement agendas may, therefore, be emerging.
Failure can result in significant penalties, including fines, legal action, and loss of public trust. Failure to adhere to the security framework regarding data protection can lead to high fines and even court cases. In today’s world, industries rely heavily on data to inform decisions and drive innovation.
million fine against Austrian Post for channelling electronic data protection-related inquiries to a web form and not offering an additional email address, irrespective of the data subject option to also use non-electronic postal mail or customer service. These developments, and more, covered below. Standard Contractual Clauses).
After just a couple of years at the ARDC—an entity charged by the Illinois Supreme Court with upholding the legal profession’s integrity in Illinois—Larkin began to realize he might have found the place where he could accomplish his mission. “As He was a gentleman when he appeared before the court,” Grogan said. “He
Key takeaways from October include: Employee monitoring: Following new guidance issued by the UK ICO, employers may want to review their existing employee monitoring to ensure it meets the regulator’s latest expectations, including ensuring that any monitoring is necessary, proportionate, and conducted transparently.
Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling that the reproduction of Andy Warhol’s Orange Prince on the cover of a magazine tribute was not a fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photo of the singer-songwriter Prince, on which the Warhol portrait was based.
The court treats this as a surprisingly easy Section 230 case and dismisses the case. By definition, Snap’s failure to remove CSAM distributed on Snapchat by third parties, and Apple’s and Google’s choice to allow Snapchat to remain available for download in their online stores, involve “reviewing. Next stop: the 9th Circuit.
The court responds: “Doe’s breeding ground theory essentially seeks to hold Meta liable for failing to remove traffickers’ grooming messages and posts advertising their victims for sex.” Finally: in passing, the court says “Her trafficker was convicted in a criminal trial and sentenced to 40 years in prison.”
12] Herzberg’s family sued Uber, the owner of the vehicle, but whether Uber or its programmers would have been found liable in civil court isn’t clear—the parties reached a confidential settlement. [13] 2] Ahead, a driver-operated car struck a pedestrian, throwing her into the Cruise’s path. If there is no driver, who is liable?
Another popular theme: lawyer wellbeing. Or, in 2021 parlance, “me-ssential” advice — why and how to prioritize self-care activities (like sleep) and time. Counting Down the Top 20 of 2021. When 2020 finally ended, pundits and publications searched for a word to encapsulate the year. The Top 20 Articles of 2021 Countdown.
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.
The court holds that Section 230 applies to the claims. ” The court responds that “Grindr’s match function relies on and publishes a user’s profile and geolocation data, which is third-party content generated by the user.” The court rejects Doe’s attempted Lemmon v. ICS Provider. Publisher/Speaker Claims.
Having manufactured the requirement of that the claim must be based on “particular” content to trigger Section 230, the court says none of the claims do that. ” I’d love for the court to explain how blocking users from contacting each other on apps differs from “content moderation.”
The underlying failures alleged in the settlement occurred between 2018 and 2023. The settlement also underscores the need to provide a channel for personnel to escalate perceived compliance failures. The settlement also underscores the need to provide a channel for personnel to escalate perceived compliance failures.
By guest blogger Lisa Ramsey , Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law The Supreme Court will likely hold in Elster that Section 2(c) is consistent with the First Amendment, but will it clarify how to balance trademark and free speech rights? After the Supreme Court granted cert in Vidal v. Tam (2017) and Iancu v.
I’m still blogging Section 230 cases as I see them, even though these posts are likely to have only historical value. ] * * * The court summarizes the horrifying allegations: In April 2022, Defendant Bendjy Charles (“Charles”) and Romelus raped Plaintiff. The court dismisses OnlyFans per Section 230.
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