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
Even if a business labels a worker as an independent contractor, they still are considered an employee if they meet the definition of this term under statelaw. The employer must have workers’ compensation insurance, although almost all states require most employers to sign up for this coverage.
Negligence involves showing that the manufacturer or other defendant failed to use appropriate care. A plaintiff may raise both theories if statelaw and the facts of the case permit. Sometimes punitive damages also may be available if the defendant engaged in egregious misconduct. Why Might the FDA Recall a Drug?
A web of federal and statelaws shields consumers from fraud, abuse, and other forms of harm. Statelaws governing debt collection sometimes extend more broadly. Justia provides a 50-state survey on fair debt collection laws and some related statutes. Will I Lose My Utilities if I Cannot Pay the Bill?
A look back at 2024 shows that plaintiffs are learning from the initial wave of cases filed against AI developers, and that plaintiffs are now adapting their claimsas well as the defendants they are suingto meet the shifting legal terrain. 1] Proving Defendants Use of Training Data Inputs.
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. With Section 230 out of the picture, the opinion must march through a multi-state analysis for various claims.
While federal law governs people and businesses across the U.S., each state has developed its own set of laws in many areas. These range from employment and family law to personal injury and criminal law. Statelaws may resemble one another in some situations, but they may vary greatly in others.
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. However, many federal and statelaws allow Americans to stand up for themselves as well.
In order to win a personal injury case, the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was negligent or intentionally caused the injury. If there is not enough evidence to prove the defendant’s liability, the case is unlikely to succeed. Personal injury claims can be complex and difficult to win.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants knew they were collecting biometric data from Illinois citizens, including children, in violation of Illinois statelaw.” ” The plaintiffs claim that AWS “possesses” the biometric data but does not comply with the necessary steps under BIPA. .”
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!)
When Meta sued Bright Data for breaching Facebook’s and Instagram’s ToS, the defendant successfully argued that since the scraping occurred without logging into its platforms’ accounts, it did not constitute “use” of the platform and thus did not breach the ToS. 301(a) , which preempts statelaws “equivalent” to copyright.
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.
I did a deep dive on this topic in December , but the general gist of it is that copyright law preempts statelaw claims if the state-law claims come within the general scope of copyright. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech. This case represents the latter circumstance.
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.
The plaintiff claimed that federal law didn’t preempt his statelaw claim, but the court breezily rejects that. (I Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP law is old-school and narrow, so Nextdoor didn’t have the option to invoke anti-SLAPP protection. ” The court cites Force v. Massachusetts should fix that.
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.
Implications Section 230 plays an important role in curbing excessive statelaws, but only when it applies to third-party content. The structural goal of Utah’s law is to suppress the publication of third-party content, but it never expressly says so. Case Citation : NetChoice LLC v. Reyes , 2024 WL 3510919 (D.
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.
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. Spoiler: Not Well) * Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v.
copyright law protects only works of human authorship, and the defendant, Stephen Thaler, expressly told the Copyright Office that the work at issue, titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” “lack[ed] traditional human authorship.” Nonetheless, Thaler’s lawyer has stated that they plan to appeal.
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.
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.
There are statelaws that dictate avoiding “unnecessary delay,” leaving the defendant in jail for a gratuitous amount of time before they ever see a judge. If the defendant is granted bail and can afford it, they get to go home. Say that your client is arrested for murder in late July or August.
Whereas your freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, your right of publicity is protected by a mix of different statelaws. Depending on which state you bring your right of publicity lawsuit, you may have a lot or only a little protection.
Relying on an employee’s memory without an accompanying thorough discussion – informed by potentially relevant technical considerations of where data may reside and a more robust effort to locate it – is unlikely to constitute a “reasonable search” for purposes of defending a response to a request for non-objectionable discovery.
Relying on an employee’s memory without an accompanying thorough discussion – informed by potentially relevant technical considerations of where data may reside and a more robust effort to locate it – is unlikely to constitute a “reasonable search” for purposes of defending a response to a request for non-objectionable discovery.
That section states that rights under statelaws that are “equivalent” to rights under copyright law are preempted. However, even in the United States, other ways exist to scrutinize contracts over information goods. ML Genius v. Except, of course, that preemption was not raised as a defense in other recent cases.
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
These conflicts frequently centre on things like property rights, contract violations, personal injury, and family law-related concerns. To seek retribution or compensation for perceived harm or wrongdoing, one party (the plaintiff) files a civil litigation lawsuit against another party (the defendant).
Supporters of driverless vehicles vehemently defend the technology as “a leap forward that will keep San Francisco on the cutting edge of technology while helping more disabled people who are unable to drive to get around town and reducing the risks posed by drunk driving.” ” But are there laws governing their use?
Not all, I believe only one or two statelaws in the US require it. But again, given the amount of law firms there are, and how important reputation is and goodwill is, you know, I do think that’s where that that comes into play. But it’s really a commercial decision.
statelaw developments all reinforce the incentives for companies to adopt AI governance programs. Violations The Law does not create a private right of action; the Colorado Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority. Moreover, violations are considered unfair trade practices under Colorado statelaw.
Companies could also implement processes to confirm that all issues that consumers raise are addressed and that resolutions are documented, so as to comply with the cure provisions of New York City’s facial recognition law. Preparing to defend class actions. Has the company obtained those individuals’ consent? 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.
Not all, I believe only one or two statelaws in the US require it. But again, given the amount of law firms there are, and how important reputation is and goodwill is, you know, I do think that’s where that that comes into play. But it’s really a commercial decision.
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.” ” Third-Party Content. ” Application.
Where the motion to dismiss concerns questions of law, additional discovery is not required. 28, 2020): There are facts from which a jury could determine that Defendants created and/or developed website content making the immunity under Section 230 of the CDA inapplicable and thus summary judgment is not appropriate. ” * Doe v.
The 9th Circuit held that some foreign defendants were subject to jurisdiction. On remand, the court dismisses the remaining defendants primarily due to Section 230, with leave to amend. They then uploaded the videos (“Videos”) to adult websites operated by two of the defendants, i.e., WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s.
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.
May 3, 2023) More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v. Per Reddit, the panel said yes to Q1 and no to Q2.
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 plaintiffs also invoked FOSTA.
Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v.
Thus, this rhetorical move doesn’t help defendants identify what conduct is clearly legal. Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. Omegle * Section 230 Helps Craigslist Defeat Sex Trafficking Case–LH v.
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