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, Kalita Mukul Creative, ran community-focused newsletters. The defendant published a bio on Sewell and included one of McDermott’s photos–apparently sourced from an unrelated Instagram account (possibly another infringer, or perhaps that account has a fair use defense?). Defendant’s financial benefit.
He calls out Twitter for its bad choice: This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech…X Corp. If the case stands on appeal, Twitter will write a check to CCDH to compensate it for the litigation harms Twitter has imposed on it. As the phrase goes, “ he can dish it out, but he can’t take it “).
Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York dismissed plaintiffs’ suit in its entirety, holding that plaintiffs had no cognizable claim for damages or injunctive relief because they failed at this stage of litigation to demonstrate that they had been harmed in any way by OpenAI’s actions. Raw Story Media, Inc. OpenAI Inc. ,
However, the court says that’s essentially a doctrinal bait-and-switch: plaintiffs actually object “to Defendants’ decisions, after receiving Plaintiffs’ reports, to remove or not remove certain videos; [not] to the functionality of the reporting tool itself.” This doctrinal move doesn’t work.
The SAD Scheme involves a trademark owner suing dozens/hundreds of defendants using a sealed complaint, getting an ex parte TRO, and then having the online marketplaces freeze the defendants’ accounts and money. [These are my rough-draft talk notes from a recent workshop of trademark law professors.]
The district court dismissed the contributory claim because the defendants didn’t materially contribute to the infringement. The court says the defendants waived any fair use defense by briefing it inadequately. For unexplained reasons, it does not appear that the defendants are invoking the 512 defense.
” [FN: the factors are: (1) “the nature of the act assisted,” (2) the “amount of assistance” provided, (3) whether the defendant was “present at the time” of the principal tort, (4) the defendant’s “relation to the tortious actor,” (5) the “defendant’s state of mind,” and (6) the “duration of the assistance” given.
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. Bright Data didn’t stop.
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 , Joseph v.
“Duffer seeks to hold Nextdoor, a service provider, liable for its failure to remove material posted by users of its website. . “Duffer seeks to hold Nextdoor, a service provider, liable for its failure to remove material posted by users of its website. Nextdoor appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
It is an all-out brawl in federal court, with no-expense-spared battles over each and every picayune litigation issue. The cases reached important milestones last Fall, when both the federal and state court judges denied the social media defendants’ Section 230 motions to dismiss.
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.
Plaintiff does not show that the alleged Marks appear anywhere else on Walmart.com apart from where they are inputted as search terms. This seems like a great case for the court to issue a fee shift to Walmart given the trademark owner’s absolute failure to show any harm. Seriously, dude? Fire, ready, aim. Cites to Sen v.
In addition, although the takedown notices state that the company contacting Defendants, Appdetex, is Yuga’s DMCA Agent, it does not state that the notice is a DMCA notice. I’ve documented dozens of ways that 512(f) claims have failed, so the failure of this claim isn’t surprising. Never has, never will.
Koerner Endowed Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School [See part 1 about defendant opt-outs and part 2 about defendant defaults.] Eight months after filing, the first two Copyright Claims Board (CCB) Final Determinations have been handed down. Mitrakos, 22-CCB-0035 , February 15, 2023, and Oppenheimer v. Let’s take a look.
In re: StubHub Refund Litigation , No. Two top-line takeaways you might get from this post: A two-click formation process avoids the risk of judges moving the goalposts about formation, and If you are amending your TOS, have an airtight plan for building a credible evidentiary record. 22-15879 (9th Cir. Citing Sellers v.
It may even get to the point where the media covers the case which can change public perception of the defendant and negatively impact both personal and professional relationships. Not to mention, it’s costly to defend yourself against a frivolous claim. Not to mention, it’s costly to defend yourself against a frivolous claim.
Legal motion management is an essential aspect of the litigation process. For lawyers, attorneys, and parties involved in the litigation, it is necessary to understand the legal motion practice. In this motion, the case gets dismissed on the grounds like an improper venue or failure to state claims.
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.
[Eric’s note: this is the post you’ve been waiting for: Prof. Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. This post is 11,000+ words long, so you may want to block out some time to enjoy this properly.] By Guest Blogger Tyler Ochoa By a 7-2 vote, the U.S. Goldsmith , No. 21-869 (May 18, 2023).
Less distressing but equally true (if only marginally less dated a cultural reference) is that the Internet is for porn. While online services inevitably get used for both types of content, service providers tend to treat them very differently, given that adult pornography is generally legal in the U.S. whereas CSAM is illegal everywhere.
The panel summarizes: “Because Does state law claims necessarily implicate Grindrs role as a publisher of third-party content, 230 bars those claims. Doe fails to state a plausible TVPRA claim, so Doe cannot invoke a statutory exception to 230 immunity.” and is “a description of its moderation policy.”
As usual, a key non-litigant is Rightscorp, which sent 1.3M On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upholds Grande’s liability but reverses the damages computation in a way that will save Grande a few dollars. NOCIs to Grande between 2011 and 2017. Unsurprisingly, this argument fails. Frontier, another IAP, failed with this argument elsewhere).
The non-disparagement clause reads: “[a]t all times during the Term and thereafter, neither Party will, whether directly or indirectly, make any disparaging, negative, or false or misleading statements with respect to the other Party.” Further, the disparagement agreement is not limited by common-law defamation requirements. * LEXIS 125429 (M.D.
My blog post on the district court opinion (I focused on the 230 issue, but this ruling turns on the failure of the prima facie elements). The panel says wearily that “This action is Loomers fourth lawsuit about this alleged conspiracy” but sidesteps the obvious res judicata problem.
Such a fundamental shift will create new litigation and potentially upend breach response. Privacy Regulations: The Administration appears to be using the Strategy to promote federal legislation to impose clear limits on the collection, use, transfer and maintenance of personal data, i.e., federal privacy regulation.
ACLU, saying that filtering solutions were less restrictive than server-side content controls (it took another 5 years of litigation before the challenges were fully resolved). Many recent laws essentially mirror the “protect the kids online” initiatives of the 1990s and early 2000s, all of which failed as unconstitutional.
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. Charles and Romelus filmed each other while they raped Plaintiff.
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