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
Although the case was just settled, this lawsuit was not Nikes first foray into patent infringement litigationnor is it likely to be its last. In its lawsuit, Nike sought both damages and a permanent injunction to stop Lululemon from producing the allegedly infringing designs. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.
In April, Tesla will be back in court over allegations that the company’s autopilot driver-assist software is defective and led to a fatal 2018 car accident that took the life of a former Apple employee in California.
Today’s document deep dive focus is on the recent California Court of Appeals decision to remand Wozniak v. YouTube, LLC to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the Hon. The lawsuit, filed in August 2018,… Continue reading → The post Document Deep Dive: The Return of Wozniak v.
In my previous post , I summarized: This lawsuit involves troubling allegations that Facebook executives ( allegedly , Nick Clegg, Nicola Mendelsohn, and Cristian Perrella) took bribes from OnlyFans-related entities to spike Facebook and Instagram posts that promoted competitors of OnlyFans. The plaintiffs’ allegations were sizzling.
The past year was marked by many more filed cases than decisions, and those decisions that were issued largely demonstrated how well-known pitfalls will also hamper this new wave of AI lawsuits. Courts have widely rejected claims that AI models themselves are unlawful derivatives of the copyrighted works they were trained on. [3]
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.
I’ve blogged many Ripoff Report cases over the years, but it’s been a while since my last one (looks like 2018 ?). He brought a state court class action lawsuit against Ripoff Report, alleging violations of CA B&P 17200 and the implied covenant of good faith. Ripoff Report removed the case to federal court.
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.
In 2018, Jason Fyk sued Facebook for removing and blocking his content. My previous summary of this litigation campaign: His lawsuit against Facebook was dashed by Section 230 in the district court. The Supreme Court denied cert. ” Without any change in the relevant law, the court easily dismisses the case again.
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.
” In Federal Court Responding Party Presumed to Bear Subpoena Costs, but Requesting Party Must Avoid Imposition of Undue Burden and Expense A case from the Northern District of Illinois provides a good analysis of when costs responding to subpoenas may be shifted to the party seeking the documents. Cardinal Growth, L.P. ,
This is Stodder’s perspective on the lawsuit. Superior Court, to claim an Xcential invention as its own and to throttle us for, among other allegations, misappropriation of trade secrets. Superior Court in October. We now have multiple court dates on our calendar in the new year. The Holy Grail? Here comes Goliath.
On August 18, 2023, the Fourth Circuit decertified approximately 20 million putative class action claims arising out of a 2018 data breach involving Marriott Hotels. While this lawsuit arose as a result of a data breach, all companies transacting business on the internet are potentially liable to class action claims.
2019) (“As courts uniformly recognize, § 230 immunizes internet services for third-party content that they publish, including false statements, against causes of action of all kinds.”). 2018), aff’d , 765 F. ” * Doe v. Grant, 2021 Ariz. LEXIS 1327 (Az. Superior Ct. March 31, 2021). Google , LLC , 925 F.3d June 19, 2023).
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?
Supreme Court TransUnion decision. Individuals whose personal information was compromised in a data breach have had mixed success in bringing lawsuits in federal court against the companies that held their data. Recent Circuit Court Decisions: Tsao, McMorris, and In re Equifax The U.S.
The rapid growth of generative artificial intelligence in both popularity and ability continues to pose difficult questions for courts and governmental bodies. Copyright law has already experienced a string of AI-related lawsuits this year alone, prompting the U.S. In 2018, OpenAI researchers admitted that “. OpenAI, Inc.
A 25-person legal technology company in California is fighting back against one of the world’s largest law firms in a lawsuit over ownership rights to legislation-drafting software that each side says was its idea. Attorneys at Akin Gump declined to discuss the lawsuit. Series of Meetings. ” The case is No.
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.
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.
We help lawyers make evidence-based decisions about the venues they choose and the arguments they make by focusing on the jurisprudence of the judges and courts they interact with. Founded: 9/8/2018. The first and most awarded ODR platform – used by courts, corporations, law firms and more. Headquarters: Berkeley, Calif.
The term “person” has also been interpreted conservatively by the Courts in respect of copyright law. In 2019, the Delhi High Court rejected a copyright claim over a list compiled by a computer, on the grounds of, inter alia, lack of human intervention. [8] Few of the cases are discussed below.
It even wrote me a funny Limerick about the Supreme Court: “ There once were nine judges supreme whose robes were a legal dream. And I think a poignant example of this is on February 22 of this year, Joshua Browder, who is the CEO of Do Not Pay was planning to use ChatGPT to defend a client in traffic court, here in California.
We help lawyers make evidence-based decisions about the venues they choose and the arguments they make by focusing on the jurisprudence of the judges and courts they interact with. Founded: 9/8/2018. The first and most awarded ODR platform – used by courts, corporations, law firms and more. Headquarters: Berkeley, Calif.
In so holding, however, the Court declined to resolve the logically antecedent question of whether the discovery rule applies to the three-year copyright statute of limitations, finding “that issue is not properly presented here, because Warner Chappell never challenged the Eleventh Circuit’s use of the discovery rule below.” Nealy , No.
The appellate court refers to Doe’s behavior as “ capping.” The court dismissed the case on Section 230 grounds. Knowing CSAM Possession The district court dismissed the CSAM civil claim on Section 230 grounds. The 11th Circuit affirms, but relies only partially on Section 230 grounds.
The district court initially dismissed Adler’s trademark claims , but the Fifth Circuit unfortunately revived the claims citing initial interest confusion (UGH). ” This sounds like a lot of potentially confused consumers, but the court isn’t persuaded by the volume.
Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. For nearly 30 years, the framework for judging fair use cases has been remarkably stable, based on Justice Souter’s masterful opinion for a unanimous Court in Campbell v. [Eric’s note: this is the post you’ve been waiting for: Prof. 569 (1994).
Section 230 preempts her lawsuit against Facebook: “Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § This judge focused solely on Ninth Circuit precedent, which makes sense because this court is in the Ninth Circuit’s territory and that will help with any appeal).
In 2021, the court dismissed the non-FOSTA claims but did not dismiss the FOSTA claim. Reddit cert petition was pending before the Supreme Court. A few weeks later, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Reddit case). Marriott * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–GG v. Case Citation : Doe v.
” My post tried to translate this statement: Underneath this anodyne conclusion, the court is impliedly making two key points: (1) users’ activities do not contribute to evaluating the defendant’s 1591 exposure, and (2) the applicable scienter to get around 230 is 1591’s “actual knowledge” requirement.
The court treats this as a surprisingly easy Section 230 case and dismisses the case. Twitter , the court disagrees: Unlike in Lemmon and Roommates.com , the harm Plaintiffs allege here doesn’t flow from a design defect. ” The plaintiffs also sued Google and Apple for carrying Snap in their app stores. Next stop: the 9th Circuit.
On remand, the court dismisses the remaining defendants primarily due to Section 230, with leave to amend. The court summarizes the facts: Plaintiff alleges she was trafficked as a minor and her traffickers filmed her while she was engaged in sex acts. . The court says Section 230 preempts it in this case. The Lemmon v.
“Cruise”ing for “Waymo” Lawsuits: Liability in Autonomous Vehicle Crashes By Caroline Kropka On October 2, 2023, a driverless vehicle traveled down a San Francisco street. [1] 18] Because Japan was the appropriate forum, the court did not have authority and had to dismiss the case.
Analogous to how narrowing interpretations rendered the SAVE Act irrelevant (FOSTA’s precursor), the court’s interpretations decrease the odds that the government will bring FOSTA-based prosecutions. ” Later, the court recapitulates: “FOSTA does not criminalize promoting prostitution broadly. .”
Readers with good memories will recall that I have blogged several other cases against Salesforce with similar allegations, with mixed results in court. Salesforce decision closely, the court concludes that Salesforce doesn’t qualify for Section 230 immunity in the FOSTA case. Salesforce invoked the Fifth Circuit’s Doe v.
I got really really serious about Instagram probably 2017-2018. But what I did have happen is when I was working as an insurance defense lawyer, I had another female lawyer tell me to be very careful what I wore to court, which I still think a lot of that is true. So Erin Camp 24:08 It took a huge lawsuit. Yeah, it took forever.
ByteDance, a Chinese internet technology company, acquired TikTok (formerly known as Musical.ly, a lip-syncing app) in 2018. TikTok has already filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana, claiming that the TikTok ban violates the First Amendment and other federal laws. What is TikTok? TikTok is a highly popular social media platform.
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.
I got really really serious about Instagram probably 2017-2018. But what I did have happen is when I was working as an insurance defense lawyer, I had another female lawyer tell me to be very careful what I wore to court, which I still think a lot of that is true. So Erin Camp 24:08 It took a huge lawsuit. Yeah, it took forever.
Even though the legal system punished the wrongdoers, the lawsuits continue. The district court dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirms every point of the district court’s decision. The court says that Grindr’s claim is not a specific promise, is too general to be enforced (I guess it’s like puffery?)
Even though the legal system punished the wrongdoers, the lawsuits continue. 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.”
Six4Three sued Facebook in 2015 (yes, this lawsuit has been ongoing for a decade) and somehow worked its way up to a Fifth Amended Complaint. In its most recent ruling, the trial court granted Facebook’s anti-SLAPP motion and awarded Facebook nearly $700k in attorneys’ fees. The appellate court affirms. ICS Provider.
9, 2024) The lawsuit alleges Meta addicts teens and thus violates DC’s consumer protection act. 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. District of Columbia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., LEXIS 27 (D.C.
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