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
It’s a small operation, with a 2022 budget of under $1M/year. The defendant conceded summary judgment on liability, and the court held a trial on damages. This post covers the court’s ruling following the damages trial. Setting the Damages Range The court rejects KMC’s innocent infringement defense.
The district court dismissed the complaint in 2022. After more time and money at the district court, Facebook should have no problem defeating it.” ” Unsurprisingly, on remand, the district court dismisses the contract breach claim. Facebook appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
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.
Consistent with the CCB’s small claims court ethos, the case involved both a pro se claimant and respondent. Michael Flores, representing himself, filed a claim for misrepresentation under Section 512(f) on June 28, 2022, twelve days after the CCB began. Mitrakos, 22-CCB-0035 , February 15, 2023, and Oppenheimer v. Let’s take a look.
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.
The district court said that the buyers who made their purchases on the website had to go to arbitration, but the buyers who made their purchases on their mobile devices could stay in court. The court says it’s immaterial that there is a potentially long time delay between user registration and the purchases.
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.
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
On July 8, 2022, the U.S. The DOJ’s announcement follows the court’s approval of a tentative settlement reached on April 27, 2022 by Aerojet and the whistleblower who filed the claims. The whistleblower claimed to have filed the action after his attempts to raise the issue through internal channels proved unsuccessful.
Viewing Heuberger’s comments in the light most favorable to Route, the Court concludes that at least some of Heuberger’s comments are not a “performance assessment of, or other similar analysis of,” Route’s services. Further, the disparagement agreement is not limited by common-law defamation requirements. * April 20, 2023).
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?
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.
The court summarizes: The plaintiffs commenced this action in connection with the death by suicide of 16 year old Chase Nasca on February 18, 2022 after he walked in front of a train. I infer that the procedural goal was to connect the TikTok claims to the related action against the railroad agency in New York, but I’m not sure.
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