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 March, the Illinois law firm, MillerKing brought the putative class action against DoNotPay on behalf of “all law firms in the United States,” alleging false association and false advertising under the federal Lanham Act and Illinois statelaw. District Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel.
In March, the Illinois law firm, MillerKing brought the putative class action against DoNotPay on behalf of “all law firms in the United States,” alleging false association and false advertising under the federal Lanham Act and Illinois statelaw. District Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel.
The plaintiffs claim that, “by enabling the transmission of ephemeral content on the application, Defendants facilitate the exchange of CSAM, and that Snap’s design of the application assists users in ‘evad[ing] supervision by legal guardians or law enforcement.'” Snap workaround.
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). . § 230, forecloses Doe’s claim as currently pled, because she seeks to hold Meta liable for content created by her trafficker.” ” Cite to Lemmon 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.” and is “a description of its moderation policy.”
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.
” The court distinguishes a long list of precedents that it says don’t apply because they “involved state action that interfered with messaging or other expressive conduct—a critical element that is not present in the case before this court.”
[Trump came close to repealing Section 230 in the 2020 lame-duck Congressional session (while he was also busy fomenting the J6 insurrection). With him returning to the presidency, the odds are extremely high that he will finish this project and repeal Section 230 in the near future. 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