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
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. Matthew McDermott is a freelance photographer. The New York Post story.
In what it described as a case pitting “real lawyers against a robot lawyer,” a federal court in Illinois has dismissed a law firm’s suit against the self-help legal service DoNotPay. “MK has not alleged any lost revenue or added expenditures as a result of DNP’s conduct,” wrote U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York suggests that CISOs might be outside of point-blank range. The Courts Ruling on Internal Accounting Controls A key aspect of the courts decision was its dismissal of the SEC’s internal accounting controls claim against SolarWinds and Brown. By Gaurav Lalsinghani, J.D.
Managing an increasing volume of cases and court deadlines– sometimes in multiple jurisdictions – is one of the biggest time management challenges for law firms. . The court ordered additional briefings, but the lawyer then missed multiple deadlines, claiming earlier orders were lost among numerous notifications on his mobile phone.
The court dismisses the case entirely with leave to amend. The court responds: “Plaintiffs do not clearly identify the ‘product’ at issue or the ‘design defect’ it allegedly contains.” These arguments revisit well-trodden legal ground, but the plaintiffs tried a modest innovation.
The court says this implementation isn’t a sign-in-wrap because the CMG terms lacked a call-to-action: “the login through Facebook screen never informed Plaintiff that acceptance of a separate agreement was required before she could access the service, which is the defining feature of a sign-in wrap agreement.”
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.
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. ” (Cite to Pierson v.
There are two critically important cases over “social media addiction” pending in California state court and as an MDL in the federal Northern District of California. It is an all-out brawl in federal court, with no-expense-spared battles over each and every picayune litigation issue.
As a result, the court finds that much of the lawsuit is a SLAPP. In a highly technical ruling, the court rejects Twitter’s CFAA claim on a motion to dismiss and rejects Twitter’s other claims, including breach of contract, on an anti-SLAPP motion to strike.
The court concludes that this as a surprisingly easy Section 230 dismissal: ICS Provider. “Courts within the Second Circuit have routinely found that social media websites and online matching services are interactive computer services.” ” Cites to Mosha v. . ” Cites to Mosha v. Facebook , Herrick v.
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.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice. ” “Plaintiff appears to argue Twitter’s placement of information in “social media feeds” renders it an information content provider. .” A Twitter user sued over his account suspension. Blog post coverage of that ruling here. The user tried again. Same result.
Those items got indexed in Google and appeared in Benedict’s vanity searches. To get around it, Todino argued that he was suing for failure to remove the postings. (I The court cites the old Lycos case for the proposition that 230 applies to failure to remove, even after notice. ” Defamation. Harassment.
The Court Opinion Greer was a target of one of Kiwi Farms’ attacks. “Kiwi Farms users provided a Google Drive link to a full copy of Mr. Greer’s book.” The district court dismissed the contributory claim because the defendants didn’t materially contribute to the infringement. CloudFlare’s block ).
” Angi responded that “its alleged failure to vet the accuracy of third-party content is immunized by Section 230,” which is absolutely true. .” ” Angi responded that “its alleged failure to vet the accuracy of third-party content is immunized by Section 230,” which is absolutely true.
The court summarizes: “Meta claims that it raised issues with Plaintiffs, including “nominative fair use,” “commentary,” and “the un-likelihood of confusion based on the appearance of the marks in the actual marketplace, as they will be encountered by consumers.””
The court dismisses Bloom’s lawsuit against US Weekly. The court says these allegations aren’t enough to satisfy the actual malice standard. Elon Musk “secretly” fathered twins with his subordinate Shivon Zilis. When the news came to light, it triggered a “tabloid feeding frenzy.” Defamation.
To get around this, Smith argued that blackmail is a crime, but the court cited Coffee v. Finally, Smith claimed that Substack’s “sheer failure to respond to [his] multiple reports, queries, and complaints was negligence.” Maybe the court was thinking of Yahoo’s promise to Barnes to remove posts? Google in response.
The court dismisses the lawsuit. Failure to Honor Counternotice. The court says Google’s “alleged failure to comply with § 512(g) does not create direct liability for any violation of plaintiffs’ rights. This case involves a UGC anime site called Gelbooru, run by Hopson. ” Cites to Martin v.
A breach may involve failure to deliver, disputed terms, or complete non-performance. Such breaches can stem from various factors, including: Reliance on third parties An instance that many people will have encountered is the supplier’s failure to deliver services to their clients. But how do they manage to avert such problems?
Book a demo of Clio Manage’s Court Rules feature and automate court deadline reminders with ease! For instance, it is most commonly used in both civil and criminal litigation for tracking courtappearances, deadlines, and other time constraints. Ready to streamline your legal docketing process? What is legal docketing?
Weve written extensively on how lawyers can use AI responsibly and, as yet another court decision is released addressing lawyers use of AI, its never been more important to understand the risks and limitations of AI use. How did the court respond to the hallucinations? Learn how it works. What are AI hallucinations?
Supreme Court [FN]. Twitter won its decision unanimously, and the Supreme Court per curiam punted the Google case back to the 9th Circuit with the clear message that the plaintiffs should lose. The Supreme Court says that the term “aiding and abetting” in the statute should be interpreted using the common law.
Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling that the reproduction of Andy Warhol’s Orange Prince on the cover of a magazine tribute was not a fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photo of the singer-songwriter Prince, on which the Warhol portrait was based.
The court summarizes the plaintiff’s allegations: Plaintiff alleges that in October, 2020, he received a negative review on Nextdoor from a former customer. “Duffer seeks to hold Nextdoor, a service provider, liable for its failure to remove material posted by users of its website. . ” The court cites Force v.
The superior court found that Facebook violated this law and awarded $35M in penalties and attorneys’ fees as well as an injunction. In December 2024, the appeals court affirmed everything. First Amendment The court says that campaign disclosure laws usually get “exacting” scrutiny (like intermediate scrutiny).
If not, why didn’t it work and what lessons can we learn from its failure? The post SHOP SAFE Act Reintroduced, Because Some Congressmembers Really Want to Kill Online Marketplaces appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. This week, Sens. As a result, it remains terrible. What have we learned since then?
The district court initially dismissed all of the claims for their lack of merit, after discussing Snap’s Section 230 defense irresolutely. Assuming the court is right the move isn’t pretextual, it’s still a Pyrrhic victory for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs tried again, with the same result. Section 230. Negligence.
Watch it at [link] Despite the obvious overlaps, the district court ruled for Epic because it thought the emote took such a small amount of the dance and short dance routines aren’t protected by copyright. This opinion forces the court to address the boundaries of choreographic copyright, a lightly litigated topic.
After two trips to the 9th Circuit, a remand from the Supreme Court, and nearly six years of motions and posturing, the outcome of the litigation was a permanent injunction against hiQ, a win for LinkedIn, and insolvency for scraper hiQ Labs. LinkedIn Corp. hiQ Labs I, 938 F.3d 3d 985 at 1005 ; hiQ Labs II at 43. hiQ Labs I, 938 F.3d
” [A reminder that court-ordered identity and age verification requirements likely violate the First Amendment; the other claims may do so as well.] Similarly, allegations of failure to warn of an application’s potential danger do not remove the “publisher” status. She sued Snapchat for her harms. cite to LW v.
However, with scant followup media attention, this lawsuit (filed in August, dismissed in December) rocket-docketed to failure faster than remanufactured printer cartridges run out of ink. * * * Note: The litigation GoFundMe page is still up. They have raised a total of $150 of their $500k goal. Cites to McCarthy v. Amazon , Ratermann v.
The court summarizes the allegations: Roblox has a virtual currency designed for use on its platform called “Robux.” The court is unpersuaded. The court doesn’t appreciate this argument: these are children we’re talking about. [A reminder that I don’t do April Fools’ pranks.] Statutory Standing.
An attorney’s reputation can improve based on their success or failure in communicating with clients. Miscommunication leads to misunderstanding and client dissatisfaction that can be translated into poor performance of cases in court. When you meet with your client, pose questions, be patient, and listen to what they say.
First, the trademark rules on the street can differ widely from the doctrines drawn up in appellate courts. The rule of law is nominally satisfied if the defense gets an opportunity to correct those errors, but in practice the SAD Scheme TRO often has irreparable consequences, and further proceedings in the court are irrelevant.
The underlying legal principles are not complicated: content rules in TOSes are negative behavioral restrictions on authors’ conduct, not marketing or contractual promises to readers that such content will never appear on the site. ” The TOS provides additional details about what YouTube considers impermissible animal abuse.
A: because they spend so much time in court proceedings). Protip: if you want to win in court, don’t self-describe as an “appropriation artist”). The court treats Ripps’ collection as competing against and putting downward price pressure on the original NFTs. Q: why are the apes so bored?
The court says “Because Walmart does not pay search engines to return organic search results or index webpages, it does not “use” the marks in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods.” ” The court adds: The Google search results are simply Walmart webpages that contain search results themselves. .”
On May 11th, the court ruled on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss , granting in part and denying in part. 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. GitHub, Inc.
With the CAS’s demise, both sides essentially bet that the courts would side with them. The appeals court rejected the vicarious claims but upheld the contributory claims. Vicarious Infringement The appeals court says that Cox lacked the requisite “direct financial interest” in subscribers’ infringements.
Thus, the court says: “the steps a business would need to take to sufficiently estimate the age of child users would likely prevent both children and adults from accessing certain content. The age estimation and privacy provisions thus appear likely to impede the “availability and use” of information and accordingly to regulate speech.”
The professional/personal distinction remains hot for politicians using social media–that issue is headed to the Supreme Court). The court doesn’t endorse this test. The Court will also likely consider ‘control’ as a significant determining factor.”
In what it described as a case pitting “real lawyers against a robot lawyer,” a federal court in Illinois has dismissed a law firm’s suit against the self-help legal service DoNotPay. But DoNotPay — represented by real, not robot, lawyers — moved to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting that MillerKing lacked standing to sue it in federal court.
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