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
But this new era of AI has not come without controversy, as authors and rights holders have launched waves of litigation against the companies that trained and released generative AI models, as well as their investors and affiliates, alleging violations of intellectual property rights. 1] Proving Defendants Use of Training Data Inputs.
Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation , 2024 WL 4532937 (N.D. Combined with prior rulings, in the October 24, 2024 ruling, the court summarizes where the various claims stand: It’s even more complicated, because several of the plaintiffs’ claims are based on statelaws.
This allows a large number of consumers who have suffered the same type of harm caused by the same defendant to pursue their claims as a group. Class actions must meet certain requirements under federal or state procedural rules. In some cases, a consumer might resort to alternative dispute resolution , rather than litigation.
But by providing a foil in litigation against both the Center for Countering Digital Hate (“CCDH”) and Bright Data (the world’s largest seller of scraped data), he’s given judges in the most important district court in the country for tech legal issues, the Northern District of California, plenty of motivation to rule against him.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s delay in definitively resolving this case will leave a vacuum for reviewing many other pending and imminent constitutional challenges to statelaws. I will have a more complete analysis of the cases soon. The post Statement on the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Moody v.
Section 230 Ripoff Report claimed that removal was justified because Section 230 completely preempted the statelaw claims. As such, there was no objectively reasonable basis for Defendant’s to remove the case based on complete preemption by the CDA. Cites to Zeran v. AOL (the district court opinion!) News You Can Use.”
The legal proceedings can be broadly categorised into civil and criminal litigation, each governed by distinct laws and procedures. This blog highlights the key differences between civil and criminal litigation according to the law. Discovery is the process by which parties exchange information and evidence.
The plaintiff claimed that federal law didn’t preempt his statelaw claim, but the court breezily rejects that. (I Even pro se litigants typically recognize these cases are doomed and rarely file them any more. ” The court cites Force v. Facebook , but it could have cited to any of literally hundreds of cases.
This is the basic reason that summary judgment, at long last, must be GRANTED to Meta defendants. Again, the judge gave ample opportunities to plaintiffs’ counsel to prove up this claim. Again, plaintiffs’ counsel failed to find any poof. This is quintessential Judge Alsup.
July 23, 2024): the defendants allegedly falsely targeted 117k items through its copyright webform, which Google delisted based on these false premises. Google sued for equitable relief; the defendants defaulted; and the court grants an injunction against further false submittals. 27, 2024) BONUS: Google LLC v.
It said 230 was not available to Letgo because, per Accusearch , “Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded, for a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), that Defendants contributed in part to the allegedly offending ‘verified’ representation.” That was an obviously problematic conclusion.
March 23, 2023) Plaintiff provides no argument or supporting legal authority suggesting that a Defendant who files a counter-notice pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § And, emailing the Summons and Complaint to a defendant does not satisfy Rule 4’s requirements for proper service. 512(g)(3)(D) waives formal service of process requirements.
That section states that rights under statelaws that are “equivalent” to rights under copyright law are preempted. On June 26, just before the end of its term, the Supreme Court denied Genius’s cert petition, putting this litigation to rest. ML Genius v. This leaves us with a rather deep split of authorities.
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. Longarzo * DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful StateLaw Claims–Stevens v.
In re Pork Antitrust Litig. , Further, employers should examine their bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies to ensure that what is or is not company data is well defined according to their business, regulatory and litigation needs. In In re Pork Antitrust Litig. , 18-cv-2022 WL 972401 (D. Link to District Circuit Decision
In re Pork Antitrust Litig. , Further, employers should examine their bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies to ensure that what is or is not company data is well defined according to their business, regulatory and litigation needs. In In re Pork Antitrust Litig. , 18-cv-2022 WL 972401 (D. Link to District Circuit Decision
The TRO language doesn’t purport to apply to YouTube, nor could it unless YouTube had also been named a defendant. Longarzo * DMCAs Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful StateLaw ClaimsStevens v. Canning * 17 USC 512(f) Preempts StateLaw Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown NoticesAmaretto v.
It’s that every new case related to the law of copyright preemption of contracts leaves lawyers with a potential new set of arguments to defend or argue against with the law of copyright preemption. With that, any state or common law claim that is equivalent to copyright must therefore be preempted.
Judge Jones explained that the Plaintiff’s effort to confer with the Defendant over a discovery production could “hardly” be described as done in good faith to resolve issues. The Defendants offered three attorney declarations that recounted the call, which the Plaintiff’s attorney did not dispute. Cedar Grove, at *6. Clapper, 804 F.3d
Given its similarity to Illinois’s (BIPA), if the New York BPA is enacted, it would likely make New York home to a flurry of class action litigation. Unlike the Washington law, the proposed Massachusetts and New York bills contain no safe harbors for security uses. Preparing to defend class actions. Is that notice public?
StateLaws Permitting but Regulating Collection and Use of Biometric Identifiers, including Facial Data. As noted, currently, only Illinois, Washington, and Texas have laws at the state level that aim to expressly and comprehensively address biometric privacy. 2019 IL 123186, 129 N.E.3d million settlement. May 15, 2020).
MG Freesites because the defendant in that case hosted the video and allegedly exercised other content moderation steps around it. FOSTA The plaintiff invoked the FOSTA exception to Section 230, which required the court to decide if plaintiffs to show the defendant had the higher scienter required by 1591 or the lower scienter of 1595.
We’re still working through the first wave of litigation testing Congress’ poor handiwork. May 3, 2023) More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. As you know, FOSTA was a poorly drafted statute with terrible policy outcomes. Last October , in Doe v. Case citations : J.B.
Mindgeek litigation, the court certified a class of CSAM victims suing Mindgeek for “knowingly” disseminating videos of them. Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. Case Citation : Doe v. Twitter, Inc.
Snap litigation. Section 230 says there can be only one defendant for those items of third-party content, and it isn’t the tertiary player Salesforce. Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v.
The panel summarizes: “Because Does statelaw 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.” The district court dismissed the case.
At this point, the plaintiffs are arguing that their claims belong in state court because their allegations are too weak to support Article III standing for federal court. That’s a litigation strategy, I guess. 25, 2024) The post Amazon Must Defend “Yelp Law” Claim–Ramos v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Kilgore might need better legal advice on copyright law…but also, see my post on the Lenz case predicting that all 512(f) defendants had to do is say “yeah, I thought about fair use” and they would get a free pass. Longarzo * DMCAs Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful StateLaw ClaimsStevens v.
A prior ruling summarized the facts the court describes as “harrowing”: In April 2022, Defendant Bendjy Charles (Charles) and Romelus raped Plaintiff. Defendants require all videos to contain tags. No video could be uploaded without choosing from a set of Defendants’ created tags.
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.
How can the “back-office business services” vendor be deemed the proximate cause of any harms with two other defendants in front of it? For the plaintiffs to win against Salesforce (the tertiary defendant), they will need to show that the primary and secondary defendants committed legal violations (i.e.,
To establish individual liability, the FTC must show that the individual defendant participated directly in the illegal practices or had authority to control them. In order to bring an action under this provision, the FTC must establish that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge ( e.,
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