Remove Defendant Remove Failure-to-appear Remove State law
article thumbnail

Section 230 Applies to Nextdoor Consumer Reviews–Duffer v. Nextdoor

Eric Goldman

“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.

article thumbnail

Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps

Eric Goldman

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.

Court 106
professionals

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Section 230 Immunizes Snap, Even if It’s “Inherently Dangerous”–L.W. v. Snap

Eric Goldman

The plaintiffs asserted products liability and related claims against Snap, on the premise that Snap “is an inherently dangerous software product that Defendants deceptively advertise and promote in a way that facilitates sex crimes against children.” To get around Section 230, the plaintiffs attempted the Lemmon v.

article thumbnail

2023 Quick Links: Section 230

Eric Goldman

Where the motion to dismiss concerns questions of law, additional discovery is not required. Where the motion to dismiss concerns questions of law, additional discovery is not required. Therefore, as MindGeek’s motion to dismiss concerns only questions of law, no discovery is required to rule on the motion to dismiss.

article thumbnail

Instagram Defeats Lawsuit Claiming It Was a “Breeding Ground” for Sex Traffickers–Doe v. Backpage

Eric Goldman

The court dismisses the case but gives the plaintiff the chance to amend the complaint to plead failure-to-warn and negligent design–because those arguments show up in virtually every 230 case now. . § 230, forecloses Doe’s claim as currently pled, because she seeks to hold Meta liable for content created by her trafficker.”

Lawsuit 88
article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Says Section 230 Preempts “Defective Design” Claims–Doe v. Grindr

Eric Goldman

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.”

Lawsuit 65
article thumbnail

Grindr Defeats FOSTA Claim–Doe v. Grindr

Eric Goldman

Ultimately, the alleged “defect” here is only relevant to Doe’s injury to the extent it made it easier or more difficult for other users to communicate with Doe, and thus Doe seeks to hold Grindr liable for its failure to regulate third party content. Doe sued Grindr for strict products liability, negligence, and FOSTA. ICS Provider.

Lawsuit 98