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
Apple Inc , was brought after a whistleblower at Cupertino alleged in 2019 that Siri was listening in on audio conversations without the requisite “Hey Siri” spoken command or manually activating the voice assistant. Court filings [PDF] reference that California requires consent from both parties for recordings.
This long-running lawsuit started in 2019. When I first blogged this case in January 2021, I wrote: This lawsuit, like many others before it, claims that UGC services like YouTube commit illegal discrimination based on how they moderate content. Elenis Supreme Court ruling, but I wonder how it might apply to this case.
“So often when attorneys are writing court documents or preparing for oral arguments and they want to know what their judge thinks about different issues in their case, they have very little information to go off of. . federal courts. The company’s roadmap calls for it to eventually expand into state courts as well.
But that all came crashing down after I reported in 2016 of Bluford’s settlement of a lawsuit charging him with impersonating a lawyer, forging legal documents and fraudulently swindling two clients. As of this writing, the lawsuit is ongoing. Following my report, QuickLegal quickly shut down.
2023 Taylor Swift’s fans, affectionately called Swifties, closed out 2022 with an antitrust complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Ticketmaster, the online ticketing giant. In 2019 the antitrust division of the DOJ filed United States v. By Shabrina Defi Khansa, LL.M. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc.
The pandemic caused civil courts in the United States to adopt technology at an unprecedented pace and scale, improving participation in court proceedings and helping users resolve disputes more efficiently. Pew researchers examined pandemic-related emergency orders issued by the supreme courts of all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Recapping a couple of doomed-from-inception lawsuits. Apparently the publication took place in 2019 and he filed suit in 2023. The court cites the old Lycos case for the proposition that 230 applies to failure to remove, even after notice. The court cites to Hassell v. Was the court offering him free legal advice?
This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. The court said that the trademark owner had been using the trademark since 1985 and registered the trademark in 2006. 1:18-CV-850-RP, 2019 WL 5258056, at *2 (W.D. 1:18-CV-850-RP, 2019 WL 5243187 (W.D.
This well-publicized lawsuit is an example of Musk waging lawfare over a critic’s speech. As a result, the court finds that much of the lawsuit is a SLAPP. By declaring the lawsuit a SLAPP, the court concludes that Twitter misused the court system in an attempt to suppress CCDH’s speech.
2023 Taylor Swift’s fans, affectionately called Swifties, closed out 2022 with an antitrust complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Ticketmaster, the online ticketing giant. In 2019 the antitrust division of the DOJ filed United States v. By Shabrina Defi Khansa, LL.M. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc.
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.
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.
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. Ct. 2019 WL 5595037 (S.D.N.Y.
The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ). The court says the rival makes a trademark use in commerce by using the trademarks in its “metatags” (ugh). These omissions would be frustrating if the court didn’t reject the trademark owner on other grounds.
In March 2023, Meta Platforms lost a class action lawsuit against the Dutch Data Privacy Stichting in an Amsterdam court, acting in conjunction with the Consumentenbond, the Dutch Consumers’ Association. Thus, investigating the issue of processing sensitive data for advertising purposes, the court determined in paragraph 13.14
At issue are two versions of the TOS from 2016 and 2019. Amazon updated the TOS in 2019 to make explicit that arbitrability would be decided by an arbitrator, and it emailed the drivers the new TOS. Nor did the court have other evidence that might allow it to assess notice, such as a description of the email.
For 2019, I replaced the year-end list with a decade-end list. In the realms of legal technology and innovation, the pandemic had yielded silver linings – greater adoption of technology, more flexible workplaces, hybrid courts – that promised a future in which the legal profession and justice system would better serve those who need them.
In a lawsuit filed this week in federal court in Manhattan, the former chief operating office of a legal technology company claims she was fired after attempting to exercise stock options valued at over $1 million. The defendants have not yet filed an answer in the lawsuit.
The law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld has lost its bid to dismiss four of five counterclaims filed by the legal technology company Xcential Legislative Technologies in a lawsuit over ownership rights to legislation-drafting software that each side says was its idea. Superior Court Judge Juliet J. McKenna disagreed.
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.
“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.
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).
.” That’s not exactly the answer a court gave, but perhaps close enough. Cattelan created artwork named “Comedian” in 2019. The court displayed the respective artworks: Morford sued Cattelan for copyright infringement. Somewhat surprisingly, the district court denied Cattelan’s motion to dismiss.
The pandemic caused civil courts in the United States to adopt technology at an unprecedented pace and scale, improving participation in court proceedings and helping users resolve disputes more efficiently. Pew researchers examined pandemic-related emergency orders issued by the supreme courts of all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
And even though the creators of popular services know, and you know, and I know, and the Supreme Court knows , and every judge that decides every opinion on these issues knows, that no one is reading these documents, the legal system has collectively decided this system sufficient to bind everyone to a legal agreement. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th
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. Dreaming up such an efficient solution is one thing; writing the code to enable it was much more challenging, but in 2019 Vergottini did it.
” 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. ,
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.”). ” * Doe v. Grant, 2021 Ariz. LEXIS 1327 (Az. Superior Ct. March 31, 2021). See, e.g. , Marshall’s Locksmith Serv. Google , LLC , 925 F.3d
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. To the contrary, the company says that Agnello stole its idea after it gave him a demonstration of the software in 2019.
Founded: 5/10/2019. 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: 11/1/2019. Founded: 11/11/2019. FIND THE BALLOT HERE. . Advocat AI. Headquarters: Seattle, Wash. Fourth Party.
For what are likely good reasons, Amazon deleted his book reviews and removed his ability to write new ones in October 2019. The court dismisses the case. In a footnote, the court adds that Amazon’s reservation of rights in its sole discretion may waive the implied covenant. No thank you. Breach of Contract.
As court dockets continue to expand, the ad boom reflects both the growth in mass tort litigation and investor interest. For instance, during the height of lawsuits targeting Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller in 2019, the industry spent nearly $300 million on television spots. a national law firm marketing agency.
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)
The market is potentially huge, given that, in 2019, automotive OEM manufacturers paid $49.4 If a lawsuit is filed, iPAT provides guidance on settlement offers, including civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. billion on warranty claims worldwide, and in 2020, they paid $10.72 billion in just the U.S. Predicting Case Outcomes.
There are more than 300 opinions by federal courts dealing with the express preemption of contracts, and within them two main approaches have emerged. Until recently, the Sixth Circuit was the most prominent court that endorsed this approach. In December 2022, the Supreme Court invited the U.S. A third approach?
So often when attorneys are writing court documents or preparing for oral arguments and they want to know what their judge thinks about different issues in their case, they have very little information to go off of. federal courts. The company’s roadmap calls for it to eventually expand into state courts as well.
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
The market is potentially huge, given that, in 2019, automotive OEM manufacturers paid $49.4 If a lawsuit is filed, iPAT provides guidance on settlement offers, including civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. billion on warranty claims worldwide, and in 2020, they paid $10.72 billion in just the U.S. Predicting Case Outcomes.
For 2019, I replaced the year-end list with a decade-end list. In the realms of legal technology and innovation, the pandemic had yielded silver linings – greater adoption of technology, more flexible workplaces, hybrid courts – that promised a future in which the legal profession and justice system would better serve those who need them.
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.
Tracking lawsuits. Archiving beneficial precedent decisions of the supreme court and other valuable legal content. He founded BobaGuard in 2019, which offers a turnkey suite for solo lawyers and small to medium law firms that include a security suite customized just for them. Managing to-do lists.
Currently, existing projects like these are authorized across the country through state supreme court administrative orders or the Utah regulatory sandbox.(2) In 2019, Mary McClymont surveyed nonlawyer navigator programs in the U.S. who help self-represented litigants in state courts.(9)
The Supreme Court ruled on February 25, 2015, that state regulatory boards, composed mainly of active market participants, are not immune from antitrust liability unless actively supervised by the state government. Soon after, in June 2015, LegalZoom cited the Supreme Court decision on teeth whitening in a $10.5
Founded: 5/10/2019. 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: 11/1/2019. Founded: 11/11/2019. FIND THE BALLOT HERE. . Advocat AI. Headquarters: Seattle, Wash. Fourth Party.
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