1H 2017 Quick Links, Part 6 (Defamation, Section 230, Consumer Reviews)
Defamation * Gillon v. Bernstein, Civ. No. 2:12-4891 (WJM) (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2016). No liability for negative Ripoff Report. * Jackson v. Mayweather, 2017 WL 1131869 (Cal. Ct. App. March 27, 2017). CA’s anti-SLAPP law protects the following Facebook/Instagram post: “the real reason me…
Politician Can’t Ban Constituent From Her Official Facebook Page–Davison v. Loudoun County Supervisors
This is a First Amendment social media case, where the plaintiff was banned for a 12 hour period from the defendant’s ostensibly official Facebook page. My prior blog post. Following a bench trial, the court finds in favor of plaintiff…
Court Can’t Ban Resident From Discussing HOA Online–Fox v. Hamptons at MetroWest Condos
This is the third time this year I’m blogging about homeowners’ associations suppressing online speech (see my posts on the Revock and Milazzo cases). I’m pretty sure HOA online censorship is a growth industry (indeed, my CRFA primer calls out…
1H 2017 Quick Links, Part 3 (Google, Facebook, Uber, Airbnb)
Google * Bloomberg: Google Now Scrubbing Private Medical Records From Search Results * Search Engine Land: A deep look at Google’s biggest-ever search quality crisis * Search Engine Land: Google launches new effort to flag upsetting or offensive content in…
When Do Review Websites Commit Extortion?–Icon Health v. ConsumerAffairs
Icon Health and Fitness manufactures exercise equipment, such as the well-known NordicTrack. ConsumerAffairs is a review website. Like many other review websites, its business model is predicated on payments from reviewed businesses. However, ConsumerAffairs’ specific practices raise some extra questions….
Yelp, Twitter and Facebook Aren’t State Actors–Quigley v. Yelp
This is a pro se lawsuit against Yelp, Twitter, Facebook and other major companies, so we know the plaintiff’s chances are nil. The plaintiff claims he was unconstitutionally banned by these services and sought a TRO against their bans. The…
Another Collision of Housing Regulations and Online Innovation–SF Housing Rights Committee v. HomeAway
This is another lawsuit over short-term housing rentals in San Francisco. You’ve been watching the litigation over the San Francisco regulation (Section 41A.5(g)) requiring “hosts” (short-term landlords) to register with the city, limiting the number of days that a unit…
Section 230 Protects Google’s Decision Not To De-Index Content–Bennett v. Google
Dawn J. Bennett was a financial advisor in major trouble with the SEC. She also has a sporting apparel company. She hired an SEO, Pierson, to improve the search engine indexing of her website. After a payment dispute, Pierson posted…
Does the Packingham Ruling Presage Greater Government Control Over Search Results? Or Less? (Guest Blog Post)
By guest blogger Heather Whitney [Heather is a Visiting Researcher at Harvard Law School (Spring 2017). She has also been Bigelow Fellow & Lecturer in Law at University of Chicago Law School (2014-2016) and a Googler (2007-2010). She will be…
Ban on Sex Offenders Using Social Media Violates First Amendment–Packingham v. North Carolina
Yesterday, the Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law that banned registered sex offenders from using social media sites. It’s a rare treat to get a Supreme Court opinion delving into Internet content regulations, and as a bonus, this…