The author's blog post was removed from Google search results due to a right-to-be-forgotten (RTBF) request made in compliance with European data protection law, which the author believes is not justified and negatively impacts information governance, though they will not be appealing to Google.
Illustratiert durch KI / DALL-E
Dr. Deborah Thomas successfully invoked Section 230 after Dr. Janet Monge sued her (and many other defendants) for allegedly defaming her in an email forwarding case, and numerous past cases have applied Section 230 to email forwarding of third-party content, making this an easy case from a Section 230 standpoint, according to the judge.
Illustratiert durch KI / DALL-E
Amuze sued the Better Business Bureau and BBB-GM for defamation and IIED for negative reviews of Amuze on their website, however, the BBB entities successfully invoked NY's anti-SLAPP law, with the court stating that the BBB's reviews and complaints posted concerned issues of public interest, Section 230 applied to third-party reviews, and the defamation claim failed because the statements made were pure opinion and conjecture, demonstrated by the nature of information communicated by the letter grade given by the BBB.
YouTube has been awarded $38,576 in attorney fees after a judge deemed Daniel's 1983 lawsuit to be “frivolous from the outset," with the lawsuit claiming that YouTube had become a state actor and that the company was bound to comply with the law, suing over shadowbanning and demonetization.
The "Schedule A Defendants Scheme" is a system of mass-defendant intellectual property litigation used to target Chinese online marketplace vendors, exploiting weak spots in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, judicial deference to IP rights owners, and online marketplaces' desire to reduce their liability exposure, without satisfying basic procedural safeguards, such as serving the complaint and establishing personal jurisdiction over defendants, and costing federal courts around a quarter-billion dollars.
Leonel Lops sued YouTube for trademark infringement related to the use of "Confidence Empire" brand for shoes, seeking $1 billion in damages and other relief, but the claim failed as YouTube is a streaming platform, and Lops failed to plausibly allege that YouTube sells tangible goods.
The FDA study has found that "consumers, generally, do not mistake plant-based milk alternatives for milk," which is a damning conclusion for the dairy lobby's protectionist efforts and legislators that prioritize dairy lobbying.
The article summarizes the recent case Selker v. Xcentric Ventures LLC in which a court rejected Ripoff Report's claim that Section 230 completely preempted the plaintiff's state law claims and awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiff due to an absence of objectively reasonable basis for removal based on preemption; it highlights the implications of the decision for other Section 230 cases.
A federal court in Tennessee recently ruled against Solar Titan, a vendor of solar installations, for including a social media clause in its form contract that violated the Consumer Review Fairness Act banning businesses from contractually restricting their customers' reviews.
An amicus brief has been filed in support of NetChoice's motion to a preliminary injunction against the California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) to oppose the age-assurance requirement which erects onerous barriers that would discourage Internet usage and chill protected speech.
The Supreme Court's 2.5 hour long oral arguments in the Taamneh v. Twitter case focused on defining actus reus and mens rea and explored hypotheticals for implications of Section 230 reform, providing a preview of the potential effects of a post-Section 230 world.
The Supreme Court justices struggled to answer key questions about what "publishing" means, and the possibility that Congress would be better suited to consider the implications of modifying Section 230 remains as the justices remained unfavourable towards the plaintiffs’ position.
The Gonzalez v Google case at the Supreme Court tomorrow is likely to have a disastrous effect on free speech and the status quo of the internet, as coverage will be dominated by misguided and erroneous opinions which stand in stark contrast to Section 230 experts and advocates of free speech.
Naomi Wolf's lawsuit against Twitter for their COVID-19 misinformation crackdown has become moot due to the recent changes in Twitter's ownership, which resulted in her reinstated account and the removal of content moderation policies.
A federal court has preliminarily enjoined NY's mandatory editorial transparency laws regarding 'hateful conduct' due to it violating the freedom of speech by forcing publishers to endorse the state's definition of hateful conduct and infringing on their editorial rights.
The victims in this case sued Snapchat unsuccessfully for 16 causes of action, demonstrating how reaching deep into the plaintiffs' bag of tricks to try to find SOMETHING that would stick often fails when the default laws don't apply.
In South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Kohn, a federal court held that government bans on scraping potentially infringe on First Amendment rights and denied the government's motion to dismiss the NAACP's First Amendment challenge to a law that restricted automated access to public housing data.
The Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of GoDaddy, affirming the dismissal of a complaint against them for various claims due to protection from Section 230 and the ACPA, as GoDaddy was merely providing a platform and domain name to a third-party registrant.
The court tersely rejected Daniloff's argument of Google material contribution to the defamation of the negative review, citing well-settled law that Section 230 protects review services for tortious user reviews.
This article discusses a lawsuit against the University of Oregon's Division of Equity and Inclusion, claiming they violated Bruce Gilley's First Amendment rights by blocking him from their Twitter account, @UOEquity.
Technology & Marketing Lawblog
Neu bei JuraBlogs
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog that covers legal and political issues from a libertarian and conservative perspective. The blog is widely regarded as one of the most influential legal blogs on the internet, and its contributors are often quoted in the media and cited in court decisions. The blog has won numerous awards and has been recognized as one of the top law blogs by publications such as the ABA Journal and the American Lawyer.
The Crime Report
The Crime Report (TCR) is the nation’s only comprehensive news service covering the diverse challenges and issues of 21st century criminal justice in the U.S. and abroad. Staffed by working journalists in New York, Washington and Los Angeles, it is published daily through the year by the Center on Media, Crime and Justice at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Weintraub Tobin is an innovative provider of sophisticated legal services to dynamic businesses and business owners, individuals, emerging companies, and nonprofits. More than 80 attorneys serve U.S. and global clients’ business law and litigation needs.
FindLaw's Legal Blogs bring you the latest legal news and information. Both consumers and legal professionals can find answers, insights, and updates.
In-House Ops delivers information that is key to career development, law department administration, procurement of legal services and in-house legal technology.
Bitte beachten Sie den folgenden Hinweis
Wir verwenden Künstliche Intelligenz, um die Artikel der teilnehmenden Blogs zusammenzufassen.
Bei diesem Artikel sind wir uns unsicher - noch unsicherer, als bei anderen Artikeln ;-) - , ob die Zusammenfassung korrekt ist.
Cookies & Datenschutz
Damit JuraBlogs so funktioniert, wie wir uns das gedacht haben, benutzen wir Cookies. Wir benutzen diese, um die JuraBlogs zu verbessern, um die Nutzung zu analysieren und unser Angebot zu personalisieren.
Weitere Informationen finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung Bitte treffen Sie Ihre Auswahl.