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
He also brought a similar but unrelated lawsuit against Noel Wells). In the Bannon case, the appeals court held that Bannon’s post could qualify for anti-SLAPP protection and remanded to explore if Nelson met his pleading burdens. The court easily disagrees. Bridgers , 2024 WL 4614704 (Cal. Mayweather ).
Despite the busy 2024 litigation year against companies offering AI platforms in 2024, significant intellectual property questions remain unanswered as the calendar turns to 2025. 2025 may bring some clarity to the legal status of AI, including through highly anticipated guidance from the U.S. In Millette v. OpenAI, Inc.,
Recapping a couple of doomed-from-inception lawsuits. Google LLC , 2024 WL 3427161 (D. July 16, 2024) Lance Benedict is a musician. 2024 WL 3421685 (Mass. 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. Benedict v.
Microsoft’s filings made some unredacted disclosures about Medina that were repeated in an unredacted court opinion, and those documents appeared on several websites that publish court documents. He then sued the court document repository websites (and other defendants) for defamation, false advertising, and more.
The court says there’s no claim called “sexual harassment,” and it struggles to find a matching claim. The court dismisses the claim with prejudice because Reaud can’t plead around Section 230. 2024 WL 4126066 (N.D. 9, 2024) The post Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Allegedly Pornographic Ads–Reaud v.
Recently, the companys aggressive enforcement of its intellectual property (IP) has taken center stage, with high-profile lawsuits targeting game modders, emulator developers, and companies like Pocketpair, the creators of Palworld. The lawsuit seeks damages and an injunction against the games continued distribution?
Encor Solar LLC, 2024 WL 4062051 (D. 5, 2024) The post Angi Can’t Dismiss Lawsuit Over Failed Vendor Authentication–Everyspace v. .” Angi responded that “its alleged failure to vet the accuracy of third-party content is immunized by Section 230,” which is absolutely true.
I believe that’s because the court and parties are battling over redactions. The court gives all benefit of the doubt to the plaintiffs, saying “The FAC alleges that Defendants knowingly obtained users’ face geometry data from Take-Two and that it remains in their control as they disseminate and store it on their servers.”
At this point, I’ve not paid close attention to the proceedings because everything at the district court level is a rehearsal for the inevitable appellate court review. A reminder: this lawsuit is a battle royale. I’m sure the appellate court will be eager to docket this one. They tried again, to no avail.
, Atari sought a preliminary injunction, which the court denies because “Atari has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits.” ” In support of Printify’s position, the court summarizes: Printify does not design the products, does not manufacture or print the products, and does not ship the products.
Lloyd sued Facebok for a variety of claims (I initially described the suit as “a standard kitchen-sink pro se lawsuit against Facebook”). The district court dismissed the complaint in 2022. After more time and money at the district court, Facebook should have no problem defeating it.” 2024 WL 5121035 (N.D.
Brett Trout In a recent decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (CoA) dated December 20, 2024, the court underscored the critical importance of precise patent drafting. The case involved Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., The patent claims covered a string of amino acids.
The US government brought a civil lawsuit against the defendants for 203 violations. Instead, the court easily finds that the defendants qualify for Section 230 protection. The court replies: “The Second Circuit has affirmed dismissal at the pleading stage in several of its key cases interpreting Section 230.” It doesn’t work.
[I blogged the Supreme Court oral arguments in the NetChoice cases yesterday. Now, with a little more time to complete its analysis, the court wrote a more thorough and refined opinion preliminarily enjoining Ohio’s law requiring parental consent for children’s usage of social media. I previously blogged the TRO.
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. Instagram, LLC, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 171462 (N.D.
had been mostly invisible in court opinions. recently started showing up more in court opinions–but not necessarily in a good way. I don’t know how many lawsuits they’ve filed because the team is filing many (all?) I don’t know how many lawsuits they’ve filed because the team is filing many (all?)
The court says that three aspects of the contributory copyright infringement claim survive Twitter’s motion to dismiss. The court says the tweeter does any “transmitting,” not Twitter or the viewer. The court says the tweeter does any “transmitting,” not Twitter or the viewer. Time flies.]
The user took the matter to court (pro se), where the lawsuit failed: Contract Breach. This becomes yet another unsuccessful account termination/content removal lawsuit. We don’t know if this is a false positive, but obviously the user claims it is and cares enough to take it to court). July 26, 2024).
The last time we blogged this case , the district court had sided with JLM, initially restricting Gutman’s use of the social media accounts and then awarding control over the accounts to JLM. The district court decided that JLM owned the accounts using a six-factor test it created. Not a word on this from the appellate court.
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.
Invoking the arbitration clause in the TOS, the defendant sought to send the lawsuit to arbitration. The district court said “There are elements of both [clickwrap and sign-in-wrap] here.” This is another example where courts will be quite unforgiving about any idiosyncracies in the TOS formation process.
Tomelleri (who has appeared on this blog before ) illustrates fishes (see court exhibit on the right). If that rings a bell, it’s because just yesterday I blogged on a DIFFERENT fish painter, DeYoung, who also brought an IP lawsuit against a print-on-demand service (Pixels). The supervising judge agrees. Volitional Conduct.
A court rejected Facebook’s motion to dismiss the BIPA claim for the AR filters used in Facebook Messenger and Facebook Messenger Kids. The court concludes that COPPA’s preemption provision nevertheless doesn’t apply to BIPA: BIPA’s subject matter is almost entirely distinct from that of COPPA. The complaint.
The court finds fair use. ” Focusing on the commentary nature of the videos helps the court bypass any lurking commerciality issues. The court summarizes: “Three of the four statutory factors weigh in Mr. Swindelles’ favor; and Mr. Swindelles’ use of the copyrighted material serves a public benefit.”
eBay defeats the lawsuit. The court concludes that “to ‘sell’ an item one must either possess the physical item or its title,” neither of which eBay does. 2024 WL 4350523 (E.D.N.Y. 30, 2024) * * * BONUS: In the Matter of Amazon.com, Inc., Consumer Product Safety Commission July 29, 2024).
Lloyd brought a pro se lawsuit against Facebook raising a myriad of concerns. In a footnote, the court adds “we do not address the district court’s determination that the Unruh Act does not apply to digital-only websites.” The court says her negligence claim is barred by Section 230. 2024 WL 3325389 (9th Cir.
On April 15, 2024 after nearly sixteen years and twenty plus dismissal attempts by CACI, the case will go to trial. In fact, this is the first lawsuit where victims of U.S. post-9/11 torture will get their day in court. government to conduct interrogations at the prison. The only case of its kind still alive, Al Shimari v.
The court dismisses Bloom’s lawsuit against US Weekly. The court says these allegations aren’t enough to satisfy the actual malice standard. If a defamation lawsuit is subject to the actual malice requirement (i.e., A360 Media LLC , 2024 WL 2812905 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2024). Defamation.
This post covers an opinion where the court assumes such vertical integration based on the pleadings (it remains to be seen if that’s actually the case). The court says that Pixels could be “counterfeiting” the Canvasfish online store (?) .” That story is still being written. Trademark Infringement.
This lawsuit relates to a property foreclosure contested by the then-property owner, Choudhuri, who sued pro se. ” I cried a little seeing the court use the phrase “internet service provider” instead of the statutory term “provider of interactive computer services.” Specialized Loan Servicing, 2024 U.S.
And the legal industry is taking notice: according to the American Bar Associations 2024 Legal Technology Survey Report , 47% of firms used legal analytics in the previous year. These predictions are based on analysis of large datasets, often including judicial decisions, court filings, case law, and other legal data. The result?
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. Thereafter, he tried to vacate the district court decision, which triggered a new cycle of rejection by the district court, the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court.
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.
” [A reminder that court-ordered identity and age verification requirements likely violate the First Amendment; the other claims may do so as well.] The court responds: The result in Lemmon makes sense, of course, because the plaintiffs there did not attempt to hold the defendant liable for publication of third-party content.
The court ruled on Hyponix and NinjaSafe’s requests for damages from the bond, dismissal with prejudice, and attorneys’ fees. The court pays out some of the bond but rejects the other relief. The court noted the deficiencies in the defendants’ alleged infringement. Proximate Damage.
You may have heard about Squishmallow’s recent lawsuit against Build-a-Bear over plushy knockoffs. The court says, per Taamneh v. Twitter , “the Court [referring to himself in the third person] paid insufficient heed to the requirement that Kelly Toys provide proof of the Alibaba Defendants’ knowledge.”
I wonder if the court realized just how much money would be affected by its earlier orders? The court is confused enough by the mismatch between actual damages claim and the apparent profit to deny the plaintiff summary judgment. Courts often tolerate detail-less allegations like this, but they shouldn’t.
This is a false advertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. The district court disagreed. The appeals court says this is a sign-in wrap implementation. Protip: don’t rely on courts to bail you out of unforced errors like this. sought to send the case to arbitration. Warner Bros.
” Congress enacted this requirement to restrict patent trolls who were filing lawsuits against defendants who had nothing in common but the allegation that they were infringing the same patent. Given that plaintiffs often need the filing fee savings to make SAD Scheme cases cost-effective, I expect this lawsuit to dissolve completely.
There are hundreds of pixel lawsuits in the courts right now (and surely more to come after a ruling like this). I’m going to focus on the court’s ruling on trespass to chattels doctrines. Note: the court cites Facebook v. ” However, the court doesn’t analyze this aspect at all.
2024* On March 21, 2024, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a landmark antitrust lawsuit against Apple, which could have significant ramifications on the smartphone ecosystem. By Aaron Kamath, LL.M. The DOJ’s complaint, filed in the U.S.
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 a plot twist, the court denies Viral DRM’s preliminary injunction request and orders Viral DRM to explain its bases for jurisdiction and joinder or else the case will fall apart. Four defendants submitted 512(g) counternotifications and thus agreed to jurisdiction in YouTube’s home court (N.D. Jurisdiction.
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.
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