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
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. ” Another lawsuit alleging unauthorized practice of law by DoNotPay, Faridian v. District Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel.
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.
Recapping a couple of doomed-from-inception lawsuits. 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 Benedict v. Google LLC , 2024 WL 3427161 (D. July 16, 2024) Lance Benedict is a musician. Harassment.
This lawsuit purports to focuses on the allegedly defective operation of the services’ reporting tools, but the plaintiffs’ goal was to hold the services accountable for their alleged inaction in response to some reports. The court dismisses the case entirely with leave to amend. This doctrinal move doesn’t work.
” 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.
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.
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.” Case Citation : Lloyd v.
.” For reasons unclear to me, the plaintiff thought it would be a good idea to sue Amazon over its competitors’ alleged misdeeds, going so far to breathlessly issue a press release that it had “filed a $500 million lawsuit against tech giant Amazon.” They have raised a total of $150 of their $500k goal. Google opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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. .”
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 e-venture v.
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.
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.
is one of the first major class-action lawsuits to dive into questions of online collection of “public data” and generative AI training data sets. 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.
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.
” [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.
There are more than 40 million lawsuits in the United states alone every year. And only 2% of those will ultimately proceed with a lawsuit. Contract and small claims cases comprise the bulk of the civil caseload, and unfortunately, most of these lawsuits are baseless claims, also known as frivolous lawsuits.
This is another lawsuit involving the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFTs. (Q: A: because they spend so much time in court proceedings). In this lawsuit, BAYC sued an “appropriation artist,” Ripps, who sought to comment on anti-Semitic aspects of the BAYC NFTs. Q: why are the apes so bored?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“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] 1] The taxi was one of around 950 autonomous Cruise (a robotaxi service owned by General Motors) vehicles operating across the United States by October of that year. [2]
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.
Design patents protect the overall appearance, visual impressions, artistry, and style of ornamental subject matter. When combining these secondary designs they had to be “so related [to the Rosen reference] that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.”
The court dismisses the lawsuit against Amazon. In a footnote, the court adds that the decedents’ age doesn’t affect the analysis: The fact that Amazon allegedly continued to sell the Sodium Nitrite to “children” after it “knew [the Sodium Nitrite] was used for suicide” does not change this conclusion.
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.
Legal teams juggle numerous matters, each with its own jurisdiction, set of deadlines, court dates, and filing requirements. Failure to manage these events effectively can lead to severe consequences such as case dismissal, attorney sanctions, and even lawsuits. All event details are listed within its matter page.
Since the implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) 18 months ago, more than 75 lawsuits have been filed seeking damages using the Act’s private cause of action. The CCPA provides a cause of action to “[a]ny consumer whose nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information. In Rahman v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.,
Legal motions allow parties to assert their rights, and seek relief from the court regarding certain cases. They can also present arguments in front of the court with the help of legal motions. They can also present arguments in front of the court with the help of legal motions. This motion asks the court to dismiss the case.
Failure to fully understand legal processes and the value they bring to your organization may lead to incidentally blocking revenue growth or putting your organization at risk. Courtroom litigation If a lawsuit is initiated against your company, it’s up to legal to prepare all materials to defend the company and minimize damage.
I’ve blogged so many pro se lawsuits by suspended Twitter users and they all end the same. The court rejects the request. The court says that the cited statutes all lack private causes of action, plus 230 preempts civil claims based on federal criminal statutes (cite to Gonzalez v. Case citation: Zhang v. Twitter Inc.
The court treats this as a surprisingly easy Section 230 case and dismisses the case. By definition, Snap’s failure to remove CSAM distributed on Snapchat by third parties, and Apple’s and Google’s choice to allow Snapchat to remain available for download in their online stores, involve “reviewing. Next stop: the 9th Circuit.
Section 230 preempts her lawsuit against Facebook: “Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § This judge focused solely on Ninth Circuit precedent, which makes sense because this court is in the Ninth Circuit’s territory and that will help with any appeal).
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.
A landlord might evict a tenant for several reasons: Failure to pay rent Property damage Violating the lease terms Illegal activity Desire to repossess the property The eviction process varies by state, but generally follows this pattern: The tenant gives the landlord good cause to evict, such as unpaid rent.
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.
Even though the legal system punished the wrongdoers, the lawsuits continue. The district court dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirms every point of the district court’s decision. Three of the men are in jail; one is on the lam. Doe sued Grindr for strict products liability, negligence, and FOSTA.
Even though the legal system punished the wrongdoers, the lawsuits continue. The court holds that Section 230 applies to the claims. ” The court responds that “Grindr’s match function relies on and publishes a user’s profile and geolocation data, which is third-party content generated by the user.”
[This blog post covers two decisions in the same lawsuit: the ruling on X’s initial motion to dismiss from September, which apparently never triggered my Westlaw or Lexis alerts, and then a ruling on X’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint that the court issued this week. ” The court cites to Murphy v.
This is another lawsuit against an Internet access provider (IAP) for user-committed copyright infringement via P2P file sharing. My post on a pre-pandemic district court ruling in this case. The appeals court disagrees. For more background on this issue, see this rrcap and the links at the bottom of this post.
I previously summarized this lawsuit: The plaintiff sells remanufactured printer ink cartridges. For reasons unclear to me, the plaintiff thought it would be a good idea to sue Amazon over its competitors alleged misdeeds, going so far to breathlessly issue a press release that it had filed a $500 million lawsuit against tech giant Amazon.
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