Failure-to-appear Lawsuit State law 
Above the Law - Technology
NOVEMBER 21, 2023
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 state law. A second California lawsuit, Lee v.
Eric Goldman
NOVEMBER 2, 2023
“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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Eric Goldman
APRIL 29, 2023
This is another lawsuit involving the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFTs. (Q: In this lawsuit, BAYC sued an “appropriation artist,” Ripps, who sought to comment on anti-Semitic aspects of the BAYC NFTs. I’ve documented dozens of ways that 512(f) claims have failed, so the failure of this claim isn’t surprising.
Legal Tech Monitor
NOVEMBER 21, 2023
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 state law. A second California lawsuit, Lee v.
Eric Goldman
JUNE 7, 2023
” This does not persuade the judge: the Court must treat Defendants as publishers or speakers, regardless of how their claims are framed, because their theories of liability plainly turn on Defendants’ alleged failure to monitor and remove third-party content. To get around Section 230, the plaintiffs attempted the Lemmon v.
Eric Goldman
JUNE 9, 2024
Section 230 preempts her lawsuit against Facebook: “Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § Doe claims she was sex-trafficked on Instagram. 230, forecloses Doe’s claim as currently pled, because she seeks to hold Meta liable for content created by her trafficker.”
Eric Goldman
DECEMBER 26, 2023
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. ” * Doe v. Grant, 2021 Ariz. LEXIS 1327 (Az. Superior Ct. Puppies, 2020 Ariz. LEXIS 851 (Az.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
275 
Let's personalize your content