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.
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.
Whereas 2020 ended with a newfound sense of the possible, 2021 ends with us still not knowing what is ahead, and therefore which way to turn. Whereas 2020 ended with great promise for regulatory reform, 2021 ends with little further progress on that front – and even retreats to some extent. Do courts fully reopen or not?
“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.
Represented by lawyers Maria Cristina Armenta and Credence Elizabeth Sol (who keep expanding their oeuvre of failed lawsuits against Internet services), Daniels claimed YouTube had to comply with 1983 because YouTube became a state actor. In 2021, the court quickly shut down that misguided argument. My blog post on that ruling.
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. Then, in 2021, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on charges related to the fraud and forgeries I’d written about in 2016.
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.
I wrote an expert declaration about them in 2021). The court says that the merchant made a descriptive “fair use” of the “emoji” term, but the court didn’t actually say that “emoji” qualifies as a descriptive trademark, instead of an arbitrary mark, for stickers.
This paper explains the scheme, how it bypasses standard legal safeguards, how it’s affected hundreds of thousands of defendants, and how it may have cost the federal courts a quarter-billion dollars. This paper traces its origins to my 2021 expert declaration in an Emojico case. Have a stress reliever toy handy when you read this.
This is one of several ideologically motivated lawsuits against YouTube for allegedly engaging in “discriminatory” content moderation. But courts don’t always use facts like that for petard-hoisting, instead grounding their rulings in legal doctrines and admissible evidence. Yet, the court bails YouTube out.
In the mid-2010s, plaintiffs filed about 20 lawsuits filed around the country seeking to hold social media services liable for allegedly facilitating terrorist attacks. Twitter, produced Supreme Court rulings last year. In light of that conclusion, the court declined to rule on the parallel Gonzalez v. Google and Taamneh v.
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]
In the lawsuit I’m covering today, Roblox named over 250 defendants. Hierl was the lead counsel on the Emojico case I opined on in 2021.] * * * Jurisdiction The defendant Bigfinz sells t-shirts. The court says “none of Bigfinz’s t-shirts were sold in Illinois.” TIL: Roblox regularly uses the SAD Scheme.
See all stories about this lawsuit. district judge in Delaware but who last month became a judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — sided with ROSS. ” As to whether TR’s lawsuit against ROSS was, itself, sham litigation, Judge Stark concluded it was not. 31, 2021. Judge Leonard P.
On January 4, 2024, the North Carolina Justice for All Project (JFAP) filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the state of North Carolina claiming unlawful infringement upon their fundamental right of free speech to provide simple legal advice to North Carolinians. But this, of course, is not the end to JFAP’s story.
The court summarizes the plaintiff’s allegations: Plaintiff alleges that in October, 2020, he received a negative review on Nextdoor from a former customer. In the spring of 2021, he relocated to Montana and revamped his contracting business. ” The court cites Force v. A series of other negative reviews followed.
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.
Whereas 2020 ended with a newfound sense of the possible, 2021 ends with us still not knowing what is ahead, and therefore which way to turn. Whereas 2020 ended with great promise for regulatory reform, 2021 ends with little further progress on that front – and even retreats to some extent. Do courts fully reopen or not?
Previous LawX projects have resulted in the development of SoloSuit , to help consumers respond to debt collection lawsuits, and which spun off as a private company , and Hello Landlord , designed to help tenants more effectively communicate with their landlords about issues that can lead to eviction. Addressing Downstream Data.
District Court for the District of Columbia granted plaintiff Guo Wengui’s motion to compel production of a report (the “Report”)—and related materials—prepared by forensic vendor Duff & Phelps in Guo’s lawsuit against the law firm that formerly represented him, Clark Hill, PLC (the “Firm”). 19-cv-3195 (JEB), 2021 WL 106417 (D.D.C.
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.
Public access to court data through automated collection of online court records is a fundamental First Amendment right and it is critical to meaningful access to the United States legal system. The recent ruling in South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v.
Savoy, 2021 N.C. July 28, 2021). Grant, 2021 Ariz. March 31, 2021). Facebook, 2021 Cal. June 21, 2021). 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.”). Superior Ct.
Founded: 7/6/2021. From launch, we closed our first customer in December 2021. Founded: 4/1/2021. 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. Headquarters: New York, N.Y.
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.
Paul Davis is a lawyer and a self-described “ J6er ,” i.e., a participant in the January 6, 2021 U.S. The Texas social media censorship law remains temporarily enjoined by the Fifth Circuit pending Supreme Court review, but Davis couldn’t wait. Capitol insurrection. This ruling primarily deals with venue.
A major NFT case was decided on February 8, 2023 as the French luxury fashion house Hermès won the MetaBirkins lawsuit against the artist, Mason Rothschild. Tell me more about the MetaBirkins lawsuit Hermès had filed suit against Rothschild for his MetaBirkins project in the U.S. So what happened? What does this verdict mean?
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.
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. June 25, 2021) will likely create new uncertainties. This is Part 1 of a two-part article on the recent U.S.
In November of 2021, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the body responsible for hearing trademark disputes with the USPTO, issued a ruling siding with the Examiner in rejecting Snap’s trademark application.
Supreme Court TransUnion decision. On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a significant opinion on standing in the context of consumer class actions in TransUnion LLC v. The Supreme Court affirmed that certain members of a class action lacked standing—and therefore could not be members of the class. The Opinion.
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.
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.
Nonetheless, we can foresee future legal battles, even class action lawsuits, arising in this arena. In 2021, the Chilean government enacted a constitutional amendment protecting brain activity and data. Employment law Employers may come to see neurotechnology as a tool to enhance productivity and monitor employee performance.
Earlier this month, three artists initiated a lawsuit against Stability AI, DevianArt, and Midjourney, which are some of the leading A.I. The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement because these companies have been using images of the artists’ work to train their programs to produce similar work without their consent.
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.
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
In 2021, an application was filed to the US Copyright office, for copyright registration of a comic book consisting of text and images (created partly by a human and partly by AI tool “ Midjourney ”). The term “person” has also been interpreted conservatively by the Courts in respect of copyright law.
Currently, existing projects like these are authorized across the country through state supreme court administrative orders or the Utah regulatory sandbox.(2) who help self-represented litigants in state courts.(9) who help self-represented litigants in state courts.(9)
Founded: 7/6/2021. From launch, we closed our first customer in December 2021. Founded: 4/1/2021. 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. Headquarters: New York, N.Y.
He was named a finalist for both 2021 “LEGAL INNOVATOR” and "INNOVATIVE LEADER OF THE YEAR”. Amy went on to describe that one way that her team does this is by subscribing to a variety of different news sources that monitor every time a lawsuit is filed in state or federal court.
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.
Starting in 2021, the defendant posted the forms to its website. Distribution The court says “the Forms were accessible at the URLs that plaintiff located. ” However, the court says the plaintiff has to allege actual downloading, not just the mere possibility. As such, defendant made the Forms available.”
My observations about the Supreme Court’s 2.5 Determining a statute’s actus reus and mens rea is standard fare for the Supreme Court. First, the court must translate the statutory scienter requirement into a sentence in English, and judges routinely disagree on the translation. hours of Supreme Court oral advocacy.
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