Technology & Marketing Law Blog

January 31, 2010

January 2010 Quick Links

By Eric Goldman

Copyright

* An English translation of Google's December loss in France on a Google Book Search lawsuit.

* Ed Felten reports on a survey of files available via BitTorrent. Acknowledging some methodological limits, he estimates ~99% were likely copyright infringing.

* Elsevier B.V. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 2010 WL 150167 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 14, 2010). Denying copyright statutory damages and attorneys' fees to unregistered foreign works is constitutional because the Berne Convention (which Elsevier argued prohibits the statutory formalities) is not self-executing.

* Techdirt: Singapore Court Rules That Online DVR Is Infringing...While Noting How Copyright Law Isn't Really Set Up For This

* Techdirt: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?

* The Copyright Office issued new regulations on the deposit of online-only works: “The regulation establishes that online–only works are exempt from mandatory deposit until a demand for deposit of copies or phonorecords of such works is issued by the Copyright Office.”

Trademark/Publicity Rights

* American Airlines v. Yahoo settled. Previous coverage:
- Yahoo Subpoenas Expedia in American Airlines Lawsuit
- Fifth Circuit Denies Yahoo's Jurisdictional Appeal in American Airlines Case
- American Airlines v. Yahoo Venue Transfer Denied
- Yahoo Countersues American Airlines for Declaratory Judgment
- American Airlines Sues Yahoo for Selling Keyword Advertising

* Duplicity alert! Rescuecom is in court defending its keyword ads triggered by competitor Best Buy's TMs.

* Bev Stayart sues Yahoo again over publicity rights. My September 2009 blog post on her prior loss against Yahoo.

Pornography

* Clark v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 5125009 (Ky. App. Ct. Dec. 30, 2009). Upholding a conviction when "Clark knowingly used a computer for the purpose of getting a minor, or a peace officer whom Clark believed was a minor, to take a sexually explicit photograph of herself."

* Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Cordray, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-149 (Jan. 27, 2010). Ohio's Supreme Court partially upholds its state law restricting Internet distribution of harmful to juveniles material to juveniles when the communications are to recipients known or believed to be juveniles.

Spam

* United States v. Zein (E.D. Mich. 2009). Posting an ad on Craigslist constituted a "mass marketing" activity sufficient to trigger a 2 level sentencing enhancement.

* Comcast and e360 settled their lawsuit. Previous blog coverage.

Blogs/Social Networking Sites

* Sieber v. Brownstone Publishing Company, 2007 CA 002549 B (D.C. Superior Ct. Dec. 23, 2009). A building contractor sued Angie's List and other people over consumer reviews. My prior mention of the case. After 2 years of litigation, a DC trial judge dismissed all defendants on summary judgment and awarded one defendant-counterclaimant $18k+. The entire text of the memo opinion:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ALL DEFENDANTS, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and GRANTING POOLE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS COUNTERCLAIM signed by Judge Long, efiled, eserved, and docketed in chambers on December 23, 2009. It is ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment of Brownstone Publishing Co., the Washington Post Company, John Kelly, and John W. Poole are granted; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the plaintiffs are denied; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of all defendants against the plaintiffs as to all claims in the Second Amended Complaint; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant Poole and against plaintiff SCS Contracting Group LP as to Poole's Counterclaim against plaintiff SCS Contracting Group for $18,300 plus 6% (six percent) per annum interest, and a separate money judgment for this sum shall be docketed. Court Jacket not in chambers.

* FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-06: Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web Sites.

* Duer v. Henderson, 2009-Ohio-6815 (Ohio App. Ct. Dec. 23, 2009). A web publication telling a ghost story and describing the location of purportedly paranormal phenomenon on private property is not liable for any resulting trespass to real property.

* The “moldy tweet” lawsuit was dismissed.

* Two lawsuits holding that bloggers aren't subject to jurisdiction in the plaintiff's home court:
- Silver v. Brown, 2009 WL 5220297 (D. N.M. Nov. 30, 2009).
- Workman Sec. Corp. v. Phillip Roy Financial Services, LLC, 2010 WL 155525 (D. Minn. Jan 11, 2010)

* BBC: France ponders a right-to-forget law.

E-commerce

* Appliance Zone, LLC v. NexTag Inc., No:4-09-cv-0089-SEB-WGH (S.D. Indiana Dec. 22, 2009). Upholding NextTag's clickthrough-formed advertiser agreement. Mehmet Munur’s comments.

* Edward A. Zelinsky, “New York’s 'Amazon Law': Constitutional But Unwise.”

* Largo Cargo v. Google, a new complaint over allegedly mismanaged AdWord bids. This is the latest incarnation of the Almeida case. I think Largo Cargo’s complaint is still a no go.

* The NYT catalogs an impressive roster of futility for US dot coms trying to compete in China.

Miscellaneous

* Gmail will consult the user's prior emails to pick an ad if a particular email doesn't lend itself to a good ad.

* Illustrating the divergence between the open source community and the Wikipedia community, APC reports that 75% of Linux code is now written by paid developers.

* Oddee: 15 Funny Facebook Fails.

* I expect to be in the Netherlands May 23-30. Let me know if you would like to meet up there.

Posted by Eric at 01:19 PM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Licensing/Contracts , Marketing , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines , Spam , Trademark | TrackBack

January 11, 2010

Top Cyberlaw Developments of 2009 (Eric's List)

By Eric Goldman

Guest blogger John Ottaviani recently dropped by to offer his perspectives on 2009’s top Cyberlaw developments. While I like his list a lot, I independently developed my own top 10 list that has a different emphasis. You might enjoy the contrasts. My list:

#10: Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc. After the judge ordered a web host to stand trial, a jury awarded the trademark owner $32 million due to the web host’s contributions to trademark infringement by its customers. This case stands out for the big damages award and as a rare example where an online provider was held liable under a contributory trademark liability theory. Many trademark practitioners are scratching their heads trying to figure out the import of this case, however. Does this case represent a dangerous new frontier of online liability? Was this a bad jury verdict fueled by poor defense lawyering? Or was this an appropriate outcome because the web host actually engaged in bad behavior that distinguishes it from most “legitimate” web hosts? 2010 may help us understand if this case is part of a new trend or an aberration.

#9: Gordon v. Virtumundo. We’ve seen a lot of silly anti-spam litigation, including the emergence of an entirely new group of entrepreneurs called “spam litigation entrepreneurs” who try to make a living on anti-spam lawsuits. These folks have a true love-hate relationship with spam; they hate it so much that they devote their lives to fighting it, but they love getting spam because each one is a potential revenue source. In general, judges hate spam a lot too, so over the years we have seen a number of doctrinally unsupportable results where judges bent the law to make sure spammers lost.

However, the judicial pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and in Gordon v. Virtumundo, the Ninth Circuit destroyed a serial anti-spam plaintiff’s entrepreneurial business in a doctrinally questionable but strongly worded opinion. In short order, a number of other spam litigation entrepreneurs have seen their lawsuits shut down with emphasis. Due to this ruling, the era of anti-spammers partying in courts may be on the wane.

#8: Zango v. Kaspersky. The question raised in this issue is simple to state but hard to answer: who should decide what constitutes spam, spyware or a virus? Vendors of software designed to curb these threats would like unfettered discretion to make their classifications; businesses who are classified as a threat would like judges to overturn adverse decisions. As it turns out, in a relatively obscure provision (47 USC 230(c)(2)), in 1996 Congress said that software vendors get to make classifications decisions and unhappy businesses can’t complain about them. In June, the Ninth Circuit upheld Kaspersky’s decision to classify Zango’s software as a threat and rejected Zango’s efforts to take the classification decision out of Kaspersky’s hands. This ruling gives enormous freedom to vendors of anti-spam/anti-spyware/anti-virus software to do their best to keep us safe.

#7: Columbia Pictures v. Fung. This case came out just before the Christmas holiday, so it got lost in the holiday hoopla a bit, but it’s a case of potentially significant import. First, it held that the specific torrent sites at issue induced copyright infringement. Second, the court denied the torrent sites’ eligibility for the DMCA online safe harbors. In part, the court said that an inducing website was categorically disqualified from the DMCA online safe harbors. Like the Akanoc case, it’s not entirely clear if this result was a legal aberration or an appropriate reaction to the defendants’ poor choices. Either way, it is possible that more “legitimate” websites may change their behavior to minimize their exposure based on the legal precedents in this case. If they do, this case could have a major impact on UGC websites.

#6: Lori Drew’s acquittal. Megan Maier’s suicide remains a heartbreaking tragedy, but unfortunately, overzealous prosecutors compounded the tragedy by prosecuting Lori Drew using bogus legal doctrines. The tragic facts got a jury to convict Drew of some misdemeanor crimes. Fortunately, the judge recognized the legal errors of the prosecution’s theory and the jury’s conclusions and granted Drew an acquittal despite the jury findings. The judge finally got to the right result as a matter of Cyberlaw, but the case remains a chilling testament to prosecutorial power.

#5: Harris v. Blockbuster. The rule is really clear. Service providers can't amend online user agreements in the provider’s sole discretion without notice. As the Ninth Circuit informed us in 2007, those contracts don’t fare well in court. So although these provisions are in just about every online user agreement, they don’t work--as Blockbuster found out the hard way.

As part of the litigation detritus from the Facebook Beacon experiment, users sued Blockbuster for sharing their rental transactions with Facebook and all of their friends, allegedly in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Blockbuster tried to bust the class action by invoking the contract’s arbitration clause. Instead, because Blockbuster had the impermissible amendment provision in its user agreement, the court said the contract was illusory and refused to send the case to arbitration.

This case should signal the end of the ridiculous amendment clauses. We’ll see how long it takes the lawyers to give the provisions up.

#4: Battles Over the First Sale Doctrine. We have seen numerous legal battles this year over the First Sale defenses in both copyright and trademark law.

Copyright owners try to engage in price discrimination by carving up the world into geographic territories with different prices for the same product. If they can use copyright law to keep the cheap products from entering the other geographic market, this keeps the product from effectively price-competing with itself.

This year, two cases involved European textbooks which were functionally equivalent to the textbooks being sold in the United States at higher prices. Entrepreneurs were buying the cheap European texts, shipping them to the US and then selling them online. The entrepreneurs invoked the First Sale doctrine, which says that copyright law can’t prohibit the legitimate purchaser of a tangible copyrighted item from reselling the item to whomever they want at whatever price they want.

However, copyright law has another provision that allows copyright owners to block the importation of copyrighted works into the United States. In the 1998 Quality King case, the US Supreme Court said that the First Sale doctrine trumped the importation right when the goods were manufactured in the US, sold overseas, and then imported back to the US. However, in Pearson v. Liu and John Wiley & Sons v. Kirtsaeng, the judges said that the importation right trumps the First Sale doctrine when the goods were initially manufactured overseas. This issue is ripe for further adjudication, though. A similar importation case, Costco v. Omega, is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is deciding whether or not it wants to hear the case. If it does, we may get clearer instructions about the interplay between the First Sale doctrine and the copyright importation right.

Copyright’s First Sale doctrine was also at issue in Vernor v. Autodesk, where the purchaser of a software disk wanted to resell the disk on eBay despite restrictions in the software licensing agreement barring such resales. The court held that the First Sale doctrine applied and allowed the resale. There are other cases percolating through the court system involving the resale of tangible media contained copyrighted material despite contractual restrictions on resale, so this issue remains a hot one.

Trademark owners also try to prevent competition with their products that leak out of their official channels of distribution. eBay has been the site of a couple battles over the First Sale doctrine in trademark law. In Mary Kay v. Weber, the court held that the trademark First Sale doctrine may not permit the eBay resale of expired cosmetics by a Mary Kay independent beauty consultant. In Beltronics v. Midwest, a trademark owner shut down the eBay resale of radar detectors that had leaked out of the manufacturer’s channel and were being sold (at a cheaper price) without the manufacturer’s warranty.

Clearly, the First Sale doctrine matters a lot to eBay and other consumer-to-consumer e-commerce websites. With a possible pending Supreme Court case and lots of IP owners looking to stifle competition from goods they have already profited from, expect the First Sale doctrines to get lots of attention in 2010.

#3: 47 USC 230. In my opinion, 47 USC 230 is the most important Cyberlaw statute, so new 230 developments will make my top 10 list for the foreseeable future. This year, there were three federal appellate court rulings interpreting 47 USC 230(c)(1):

* in Barnes v. Yahoo, the Ninth Circuit held that 230 protected a website’s negligent delay in removing user content. However, if the website had promised removal to the user, the user could have a viable claim for promissory estoppel that would not be preempted by 230.
* in FTC v. Accusearch, the Tenth Circuit held that a website’s resale of pretexted phone records—even if those records were supplied by third party suppliers—did not qualify for 47 USC 230 protection because of their illegality.
* in Nemet Chevrolet v. ConsumerAffairs.com, the Fourth Circuit held that a consumer review website was not liable for user-supplied reviews, even when the website worked with the user to submit the review, and despite the plaintiff’s unsubstantiated claims that the website had fabricated the reviews itself.

Really, the big 47 USC 230 news in 2009 is the absence of big news. Specifically, 2009 reinforced that the Ninth Circuit’s 2008 Roommates.com decision—one of the most significant defense losses under 47 USC 230—did not rip open a major hole in the statutory protection of websites. Of the 13 cases that I have seen that have cited the Roommates.com en banc opinion, eleven have cited the case in favor of the defense. (See the list here). The two exceptions are the Accusearch case, mentioned above, and the New England Patriots’ lawsuit against StubHub over season ticket resales, an odd opinion that may not have much influence. Therefore, despite our fears about Roommates.com, the 47 USC 230 immunity remained healthy and vibrant in 2009. For more on this topic, see my special recap of 47 USC 230's year-in-review for 2009.

#2: Keyword Advertising Battles. Keyword advertising battles are another perennial topic on these year-in-review lists. A multi-billion dollar a year industry has sprung up around the sale of keyword-triggered advertising, including some keywords that may be third party trademarks, and trademark owners don’t like it at all. This has led to a multi-front battle between trademark owners, keyword advertising sellers (such as Google), and keyword advertising buyers.

One of the biggest Cyberlaw cases of the year was the Second Circuit’s ruling in Rescuecom v. Google. In the district court in 2006, Google won an easy victory against a trademark owner because the court said that Google did not make the requisite “use in commerce” of the trademark. The Second Circuit reversed the district court, sending the case back for further proceedings. The reversal does not ensure Google’s defeat; Google will now litigate other legal doctrines and might very well win on one of those. However, the Second Circuit’s opinion largely spells the end of any “use in commerce” defense by either keyword advertising sellers or buyers.

Because of the “use in commerce” defense’s demise, keyword advertising cases will now likely turn on whether the advertisements create a likelihood of consumer confusion. One case, Hearts on Fire v. Blue Nile, offered up a new and complicated test for gauging consumer confusion. If other courts adopt this test, keyword advertising cases will get even more expensive and complicated—highlighting how important it was that the Rescuecom case eliminated an easy way to end these lawsuits early.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that keyword advertising battles have been taking place for at least a decade, we have not heard what a jury thinks about the practice—until the November jury ruling in Fair Isaac v. Experian. In that case, the jury found for the defense that the keyword-triggered ads did not create the requisite likelihood of consumer confusion. It remains to be seen if other juries reach the same conclusion. If they do, keyword advertising lawsuits should slowly fade away over time because the trademark owners can’t win in the end.

As for now, keyword litigation is going strong and hardly fading away. In Spring, Google made two changes to its trademark policies where it voluntarily agrees to take down certain types of ads at the trademark owner’s request. In May, Google extended its more liberal US-based policy to nearly 200 other countries, replacing the more restrictive policies it had in place there. Shortly thereafter, Google modified its US policy to do less for trademark owners in situations involving product resales, review websites and sales of complementary/replacement parts. Trademark owners were none too pleased with these changes. In response to these changes and the door opened by the Second Circuit Rescuecom decision, Google got hit with about a dozen new lawsuits, including some class action lawsuits, of which I believe 10 are currently still active.

Finally, all of the wrangling in court and over voluntary trademark policies could be mooted by legislative action, and for the third time, the Utah state legislature considered resolving the keyword advertising issue itself. A law regulating keyword advertising passed the Utah house but died in the Utah senate. Expect the pro-regulatory forces to round up the troops for a fourth try in 2010.

#1: FTC Endorsement Guidelines for Bloggers. The Obama administration has breathed new life into a pro-regulatory FTC, and the FTC sure is interested in all things Internet. The FTC has been nosing around Internet privacy and Internet marketing practices pretty carefully, and I expect 2010 to bring more FTC pronouncements designed to tackle the Internet.

But nothing stirred up a hornet’s nest of confusion and anger in 2009 like the FTC’s Endorsement and Testimonials Guidelines. I think it’s fair to say that the FTC’s guidelines rollout was a complete failure. As usual, the FTC’s guidelines were mealy-mouthed and filled with conditional statements (the FTC hates to lay out bright line rules that might constrain their future discretion). However, the FTC’s general gist was clear: bloggers should disclose when they receive financial or other consideration for their blog posts.

Unfortunately, this general principle leaves open some fairly fundamental questions, like when is disclosure required in situations less clear than straight cash-for-posting, and where should disclosure be made, especially in space-constrained media like Twitter. Needless to say, unhappy bloggers can be very noisy, so blogger response to the FTC’s announcement was loud and vituperative. The FTC tried to backpedal a little by saying that it did not intend to pursue individual bloggers, but this announcement only reinforced that bloggers do not understand what the FTC wants from them.

Meanwhile, the FTC’s proposed guidelines also took an interesting position about an advertiser’s liability for rogue blogger’s posts. This position is generally consistent with government enforcement agencies’ views that commercial players can be legally responsible for content they endorse or link to (see, e.g., my comments on the SEC’s liability-for-linking policy), but this position runs directly contrary to 47 USC 230’s provisions that say A isn’t liable for B’s online content. As a result, I believe that part of the FTC’s proposed guidelines violate 47 USC 230 and would not survive a court challenge.

Overall, the firestorm over the FTC’s Endorsement and Testimonials guidelines is a small part of a larger effort to regulatorily separate advertising from content. The Internet has collapsed those distinctions, perhaps irreparably, so regulators may be trying to accomplish the impossible. Nevertheless, the FTC seems determined to prop up the distinction, and I expect 2010 will bring more FTC efforts on this front.

* * * * *

While that concludes my top 10 list, there were a number of other interesting developments in 2009 that are worth a brief note:

* Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel. A woman trashed her hometown in an obscure but public MySpace posting and learned there is no “do-over” for Internet content publication. My vote for the most factually interesting Cyberlaw case of 2009.

* Google’s keyword metatag announcement. Courts generally treat the inclusion of third party trademarks in keyword metatags as per se trademark infringement. But Google has confirmed that it ignores keyword metatags. Will courts get the message?

* Google Book Search settlement. If the Google Book Search settlement ever gets approved, it may reshape the book industry, redefine libraries, and make all kinds of other socially significant changes. But the list of opponents to the settlement is long and growing. Professor James Grimmelmann of New York Law School is our community’s maven for all things “GBS.”

* Kindle book deletion. The Kindle store sold e-books it didn’t have the right to sell, so it took them back. Users learned of a key factual difference between physical books and e-books—the vendor can remotely make e-books go poof.

* States’ efforts to impose sales tax efforts based on marketing affiliates. For years, states have been looking for ways to make online retailers collect sales tax for them. They are generally stopped by Supreme Court precedent, but in 2008 New York finally figured out a workaround. The New York statute said that marketing affiliates were like traveling salespeople and thus created the physical nexus required for a state to impose sales tax collection obligations. The New York statute survived its first legal challenge, which opened the floodgates of other states passing similar laws hoping to get their piece of the action. Meanwhile, online retailers aren’t just rolling over; instead, they are threatening to cut off (or actually cutting off) marketing affiliates in states that enact these laws—thus potentially costing the states income tax from the marketing affiliates’ revenue, and creating the potential for the entire affiliate industry to be torn apart.

* Maine kids privacy law. Maine thought it could pass a law banning marketing to kids. It was wrong. The state had to withdraw the law and go back to the drawing board.

* UMG v. Veoh. Veoh won another nice DMCA online safe harbor victory.

* US v. Kilbride. The Ninth Circuit says that online obscenity prosecutions need to evaluate national attitudes towards obscene content, not local community standards.

* Kentucky domain name seizure. Kentucky tried to grab 141 domain names that enabled Kentucky residents to engage in illegal gambling. But those domain names also serviced customers for whom the gambling was completely legal, so the Kentucky courts are rethinking the grab.

* FTC v. Sears. As another example of the new pro-regulatory winds blowing through the FTC, the FTC cracked down on Sears for installing spyware on users’ computers that looked at the users’ hard drives, even though Sears paid the users for the installation and disclosed the spyware’s snooping in the user agreement (though in an inconspicuous manner). This case has made a lot of lawyers concerned that adverse disclosures in user agreements won’t satisfy the FTC.

* Facebook the Drama Queen. Ah, Facebook. Love it. Hate it. Facebook is a pretty nifty site and part of my daily routine, but boy, they sure do have a knack for stirring up trouble.

- In February, they made a relatively modest change to their user agreement that caused people to freak out.
- In response to this, Facebook took the provocative step towards user self-governance. Facebook let users vote on some choices and promised to be bound by the results, but with an asterisk: Facebook decided what options users could vote on, and Facebook would honor those choices only if a prohibitively large number of users exercised their franchise. Still, it was a nice gesture towards cyberspace community self-governance.
- In summer, they tried to settle their Beacon litigation, but that also reminded folks of how much Beacon irritated them in the first place.
- Summer also brought allegations of click fraud on Facebook, and lawsuits followed.
- Finally, in Thanksgiving, Facebook rolled out some changes to its privacy options that it pitched as giving users more choices, but it also took away some choices and defaulted users into some options that surprised them.

Given this track record, is it unrealistic to expect more Facebook drama in 2010?

* Estavillo v. Sony. Speaking of self-governance, virtual world enthusiasts would love to establish the legal proposition that virtual worlds are legally equivalent to governments and therefore obligated to restrain their actions just like governments are. One virtual world enthusiast sued Sony for kicking him off the network, claiming that Sony was legally governed as a “company town” and therefore lacked the discretion to kick him off. WRONG (and it wasn’t even close).

* Wikipedia's policy change. In August, the English-language Wikipedia announced that it was going to tighten up its editorial policies, and people Freaked Out. (In fact, I have predicted that Wikipedia cannot avoid increased editorial restrictions over time, so this change should not have been surprising). However, it turns out that everyone got it wrong, and Wikipedia’s editorial changes are far less dramatic (and consequential) than initially reported. I will post a separate recap on Wikipedia shortly.

If you would like a stroll down memory lane, you can see my previous top 10 lists from 2008, 2007 and 2006. Before that, John Ottaviani and I put together a list of top Internet IP cases for 2005, 2004 and 2003.

Posted by Eric at 10:46 AM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Domain Names , E-Commerce , Internet History , Licensing/Contracts , Marketing , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines , Spam , Trademark , Virtual Worlds | TrackBack

January 05, 2010

47 USC 230 Year-in-Review for 2009

By Eric Goldman

I will do a more comprehensive year in review for Cyberlaw generally, but I thought it would be fun to take a close look at how 47 USC 230 fared in 2009. This is the first full calendar year following the Ninth Circuit’s en banc Roommates.com opinion, and many of us initially feared that the case would create a huge hole in 230’s otherwise solid immunity. As it turns out, those concerns have not come to pass. If anything, 2009 shows us just how strong the immunity remains.

I blogged on a total of 22 cases issued in 2009 that discussed the statute. (I blog on every case I see that substantively discusses 47 USC 230). I blogged on other cases in 2009 that were decided before 2009, such as the Woodhull v. Meinel case from October 2008 and DC v. Harvard-Westlake, a 2007 arbitrator’s dismissal that came to light in 2009.

Of the 22 calendar year 2009 cases, I would classify 14 of them (63%) as easy defense wins, frequently on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or state law equivalent. Even many of the remaining 8 cases contained good news for defendants. For example, in Shiamili, the defense inexplicably lost at the district court level but got an easy reversal on appeal. The Stayart court granted Yahoo an easy defense win, although co-defendant Various didn’t get the 230 ruling. Similarly, the Barnes case granted the defense an easy 230 win on one theory (negligent undertaking) but denied 230 for a different one (promissory estoppel). The Certain Approval Process case said 230 did not prevent the plaintiff from amending the complaint to add a cause of action, but once added, the court instantly zapped the claim on other grounds.

This leaves four unambiguous 230 defense losses in 2009. The leading 230 defense loss was the Tenth Circuit FTC v. Accusearch case, which held a retailer liable for reselling illicit phone records. The other major 230 defense loss was the NPS v. StubHub case, which held that 230 may not apply to a lawsuit over the alleged illegal ticket scalping by StubHub’s sellers. Both of these cases involve the retailing of illegal items, suggesting that 230’s boundaries may not reach that far.

The other two defense losses are less consequential. The Project Playlist held that 230 does not preempt state IP law claims, a conclusion that deserves note only because the Ninth Circuit held otherwise in the 2007 ccBill case. I believe that no other courts will follow the Ninth Circuit’s rule that 230 preempts state IP laws, making the Project Playlist ruling unsurprising.

In People v. Gourlay, a web host was denied a 230 defense to a criminal prosecution for child molestation- and child pornography-related claims. This case turns mostly on the web host’s active role creating the child pornography (as well as the host’s molestation of the child actor); with that context, this case may have little influence on other cases. Indeed, the court made clear that web hosts providing standard web hosting services could fully qualify for 230 protection against a state criminal prosecution of child pornography dissemination.

In reverse chronological order, a brief overview of the 230 cases from 2009:

Nemet Chevrolet v. ConsumerAffairs.com (4th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009). One of three federal appellate court 230(c)(1) rulings in 2009 (Barnes and Accusearch are the others). A solid defense win for a consumer review website. The plaintiff’s claims that the website contributed to the reviews’ development and fabricated reviews were tossed on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Shiamili v. Real Estate Group (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 17, 2009). In an unpublicized January 2009 decision, the trial court denied a website’s 230 dismissal request for claims based on user-supplied comments. In December, this error was fixed on appeal despite allegations that the website “chooses and administers” the user content.

Dart v. Craigslist (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009). Craigslist got a big win in its ongoing battles with various government agencies over prostitution ads on Craigslist when the court held it wasn’t liable for those ads.

Riggs v. MySpace (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2009). A goofy case. The court holds that MySpace’s deletion of Riggs’ account was protected by 230(c)(1) on the apparent theory that Riggs (the plaintiff) was the third party supplier of the deleted content. This case would make more sense as a 230(c)(2) case.

Finkel v. Facebook (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 15, 2009). Facebook wasn’t liable for the contents of a user’s private group even though Facebook placed a copyright notice on the page.

Intellect Art v. Milewski (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 15, 2009). Ripoff Report wins again.

Stayart v. Yahoo (E.D. Wis. Aug. 28, 2009). An convoluted, and possibly confused, ruling that Yahoo wasn’t liable for search results snippets. However, Various was denied 230 because it may have originated the content in question.

Cornelius v. DeLuca (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2009). An online retailer wasn’t liable for user-supplied comments despite a “conspiracy” allegation.

Goddard v. Google (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2009). This is a follow-on ruling to an important December 2008 ruling in this case, which dismissed the plaintiff’s complaints but gave the plaintiffs another chance. The December 2008 ruling is one of the most interesting and important decisions interpreting Roommates.com. In the July ruling, the judge again found that 230 insulates Google from liability due to allegedly fraudulent ads run through its network and granted a final dismissal.

Doe II v. MySpace (Cal. App. Ct. June 30, 2009). MySpace isn’t liable for users’ sexual assaults on other users.

FTC v. Accusearch (10th Cir. June 29, 2009). The second of three federal appellate court rulings on 230(c)(1). The defendant was an online retailer of illegal phone records. The retailer claimed that the phone records came from third party suppliers and therefore 230 immunized the retailer from liability associated with the records. The court echoed the Ninth Circuit’s Roommates.com decision, effectively extending that case to the Tenth Circuit, and said that the retailer was responsible for selling the illicit phone records despite 230.

Zango v. Kaspersky (9th Cir. June 25, 2009). This is the only 2009 ruling addressing 47 USC 230(c)(2), the overshadowed and frequently overlooked sibling of 230(c)(1). Despite the rarity of 230(c)(2) cases, this case could be fairly influential. The Ninth Circuit held that 230(c)(2) protected an anti-spyware software vendor’s decision to classify software as a threat. If you missed it, you might want to take a look at my presentation slides on 230(c)(2), which distill my deep look at 230(c)(2) this summer.

Gibson v. Craigslist (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2009). Craigslist isn’t liable for physical injury caused by a gun purchased via a Craigslist ad.

Doe IX v. MySpace (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2009). MySpace isn’t liable for users’ sexual assaults on other users.

Barnes v. Yahoo (9th Cir. May 7, 2009; amended opinion June 22, 2009). The third of three federal appellate court opinions on 230(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit held that 230 preempted a claim against a service provider for negligently delaying the removal of user content (essentially, Zeran redux), but 230 did not preempt a promissory estoppel claim based on promises the service provider made to the person requesting takedown. The initial Ninth Circuit opinion had two other unfortunate digressions: (1) it said that 230 was an affirmative defense that did not support a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and (2) the opinion had ambiguous language implying that 230 preempted only state claims, not federal claims. The amended opinion helpfully eliminated both digressions.

Atlantic Records v. Project Playlist (S.D.N.Y. March 25, 2009). 230 does not preempt a state IP claim—in this case, a violation of state copyright law for pre-1972 sound recordings.

Joyner v. Lazzareschi (Cal. App. Ct. March 18, 2009). A message board operator wasn’t liable for user posts.

Raggi v. Las Vegas Police (D. Nev. March 10, 2009). A union wasn’t liable for messages that union members posted on the union-operated message board.

Certain Approval Programs v. Xcentric Ventures (D. Ariz. March 9, 2009). 230 did not bar amending a complaint to add a new cause of action when the plaintiff also adequately alleged that the Ripoff Report contributed to the creation and development of the content at issue.

People v. Gourlay (Mich. App. Ct. March 3, 2009). This case involves the prosecution of a pornographic web host who also molested the child actor. The web host asserted a 230 defense in trying to overturn the conviction for the charges related to pornography dissemination. Although 230 can preempt state criminal prosecutions, and web hosts are protected by 230 for their ordinary web hosting activities, this web host actively participated in the site’s development and therefore lost 230’s protection.

NPS v. StubHub (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan. 26, 2009). In a long-running battle between the New England Patriots and season ticketholders who want to resell their tickets via StubHub, StubHub was denied summary judgment on 230 grounds. The court cites Roommates.com in saying that StubHub may have contributed to illegal ticket scalping sufficient to potentially disqualify it for 230 protection.

GW Equity v. Xcentric Ventures (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2009). Ripoff Report is protected by 230 even though it offers pull-down menus and manipulates user-submitted reports.

Posted by Eric at 11:45 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

January 04, 2010

Terminated eBay Vendor Gets Day in Court Against eBay--Crawford v. Consumer Depot

By Eric Goldman

Crawford v. Consumer Depot, Inc., 05-3242 (Tenn. County Ct. Dec. 9, 2009)

Essex and Consumer Depot are competitors in the eBay consignment business. According to the court, prior to 2005 Essex used to allow its employees to bid on its auctions, and in 2004 one of its executives was personally suspended for shill bidding. Consumer Depot allegedly accused Essex of shill bidding, sparking a lengthy multi-front battle between the two companies (dating back to summer 2005).

In 2005, eBay suspended Essex for alleged shill bidding. eBay says it made an independent assessment (easily supported because of Essex's past practices) and didn't rely on reports from Consumer Depot. While Essex was negotiating with eBay over possible reinstatement, Essex tried to unload its warehouse by hiring independent contractors who worked very closely with Essex. eBay decided that this end-run was uncool and terminated Essex. Essex eventually sued eBay for the termination.

eBay defended in part on its user agreement. Essex attacked the user agreement in a number of ways, including:

* it never agreed to the user agreement and the company wasn't bound by it. The court says that no one is allowed to sell on eBay without registering for an account, and the registration process requires acceptance of the user agreement. Any employees registering the Essex account automatically bound the corporation. (Cite to the Motise case, briefly discussed here).

* the contract was unconscionable and a contract of adhesion. The court says that although eBay is an important marketplace, people are free to go elsewhere, eBay is free to decline to business with anyone, and in this case Essex was a sophisticated business with experienced principals.

* the contract is illusory because eBay may modify it (see, e.g., the uncited Harris v. Blockbuster). The court rejects this argument because the changes require notice.

* the contract is illusory because eBay can terminate the relationship if it believes that Essex posed a threat to the site's integrity. The court says this provision is sufficiently definite, but only if the court reads into it a "good faith reasonableness" standard for eBay's belief. Further, Essex's multi-year relationship with eBay creates a course of dealing that overlays the agreement. The court’s discussion is a little garbled, but it is clear that the court added a provision to the contract that eBay may exercise its termination right only reasonably and in good faith.

The courts says eBay had an ambiguous anti-shill bidding policy at the time, and Essex alleges that eBay was looking for a big player to use as an example to other vendors. Thus, Essex may be able to prove that eBay "falsely and as a pretext stated that it found Essex guilty of shill bidding."

Based on the modified contract and eBay’s alleged pretextual justifications, the court denies summary judgment to eBay on the contract and state consumer protection claims. Further, the court says that eBay's liability limit clause applies to the contract but not the consumer protection tort claim. With the open damages on the tort claim, this has become a very dangerous lawsuit for eBay. A jury isn’t going to like a shill bidder, but a Tennessee jury isn’t going to like a Silicon Valley bully beating up on a hometown employer either.

My question is: could eBay have successfully defended all claims based on 47 USC 230(c)(2), the statutory protection for filtering decisions? (Not 230(c)(1), which protects against liability for third party content). Policing against shill bidding seems consistent with the spirit of 230(c)(2)--it's something we want service providers to do, and (c)(2) seems to immunize the steps a service provider takes to do so. Perhaps the real core of this dispute is that eBay publicly called out Essex as an example of a shill bidder. This would bring to mind the National Numismatics case where eBay was denied 230(c)(2) for sloppily worded public announcements intimating that some coins were fake when those coins merely didn't satisfy eBay's certification process. If this case is really about eBay’s public callout of Essex for engaging in behavior that violated eBay’s ambiguously worded anti-shill bidding process, then perhaps 230(c)(2) wouldn’t help here either.

Posted by Eric at 04:32 PM | Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Licensing/Contracts | TrackBack

December 31, 2009

512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds--Project DoD v. Federici

By Eric Goldman

Project DOD, Inc. v. Federici, 2009 WL 4910320 (D. Me. Dec. 13, 2009)

17 USC 512(f) creates a cause of action for sending bogus copyright takedown notices. In a regulatory environment where service providers have itchy trigger fingers, it is crucial to suppress bogus takedown notices or the entire notice-and-takedown scheme becomes easily corrupted. Unfortunately, 512(f) cases have not fared well in the courts, and this one fails (at least temporarily) on procedural grounds. Nevertheless, the case illustrates the challenges faced by service providers dealing with copyright owners who freak out.

[The facts recited by the court are based on the complaint, so they have yet to be contested] The websites at issue are www.advocatesforchildrenintherapy.org and www.childrenintherapy.org run by ACT, both of which are critical of defendant's method of providing psychology services. The plaintiff Project DoD, a non-profit organization which offers "censorship-free hosting" and caters to "the Internet's rejects," hosts the two websites. The defendant sent an incomplete takedown notice, which the plaintiff initially honored but then vacillated. The defendant submitted another takedown notice satisfactory to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent the notice to ACT, who submitted a counternotification. After the statutory waiting period, the plaintiff restored the two websites.

So far, this looks like a typical notice-and-takedown interaction. Then, the court's recitation of the complaint suggests the situation went off the rails. The plaintiff alleges that the "defendant and others engaged in a course of harassing communications with the plaintiff." Allegedly, at least 6 other individuals--all of whom practice the same psychological methods--sent takedown notices to the plaintiff as well, each of which caused the plaintiff to take down the sites until it received ACT's counternotice and waited the statutory waiting period, at which point they were restored. The defendant also allegedly sent a takedown notice to the plaintiff's upstream connectivity provider, which allegedly has prompted that vendor to contemplate cutting off service to the plaintiff and, by necessity, all of the plaintiff's others customers.

Two other points: the plaintiff takes the position that ACT is engaged in fair use commentary of the defendant's copyrighted works (allegedly necessary to critique the defendant's psychological methods), and there is no mention that the defendant or anyone else has brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against ACT.

The court dismisses the plaintiff's 512(f) claim on jurisdictional grounds, citing the rule that sending a C&D letter does not create jurisdiction in the recipient's home court. That rule makes sense, but it seems inapplicable to the plaintiff's allegations. This lawsuit is not merely about the takedown notices sent to the plaintiff; it is about the alleged harassment campaign designed to kick ACT and its web host off the Internet. Such a harassment campaign should easily qualify under the Calder v. Jones "Effects Test" of expressly targeting harms towards the victim. For this reason, I think the jurisdictional dismissal is a bad ruling.

The court also seemed to misunderstand the point of 512(c)(3) notices because the court says they targeted ACT, not Project DoD as ACT's host. Although the notices superficially target user-supplied content, the notices work mainly because they remove 512's protective shield from the service provider--thus leaving the service provider exposed to becoming a copyright infringement defendant along with the targeted user. Every 512(c)(3) notice is an implicit threat to sue the service provider; the threat need not be made explicitly because every service provider automatically internalizes this threat.

More generally, this case provides a glimpse into some of the anarchy created by 512's notice-and-takedown scheme. The system generally works OK for "mainstream" cases involving commercial copyright owners and commercial service providers (except when copyright owners want more than 512 provides, which leads to the multi-year Viacom v. YouTube litigation). However, 512's balance can break down when applied to other types of disputes, such as this one involving an independent copyright owner going up against an ideologically motivated web host. In those non-mainstream cases, 512(c)(3) notices can (and often are) used to advance goals having nothing to do with protecting copyright interests.

UPDATE: Chris Mooney of Project DoD provides a useful recap of the dispute and the litigation, along with links to source materials.

Posted by Eric at 08:23 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

December 30, 2009

Torrent Sites Induce Infringement and Lose DMCA Safe Harbor--Columbia v. Fung

By Eric Goldman

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., v. Fung, 2:06-cv-05578-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009)

In a potentially significant ruling that got a little lost in the Christmas rush, a federal district court ruled on summary judgment that the “torrent site” Isohunt and related websites induced copyright infringement and were not eligible for the online safe harbors in 17 USC 512. This is one of only a few cases finding copyright inducement post-Grokster, and I believe it is the first to say that an inducement finding categorically eliminates any possible 512 safe harbor. While the loss of Isohunt from the marketplace may not be a big deal, it remains unclear if other, more "legitimate" websites will believe the court's analysis also applies to them. If they do, this case could potentially affect the entire UGC industry.

Background

Fung runs several "torrent" websites, including Isohunt, Torrentbox, Podtropolis and ed2k-it, that facilitate file downloads using BitTorrent (except ed2k-it, which uses eDonkey). As I see it, BitTorrent is the fourth wave of online file sharing:

* the first wave was websites that hosted files themselves
* the second wave was Napster, where the file hosting was decentralized but the operator kept a centrally maintained index
* the third wave was Grokster, Streamcast and their ilk, where both the hosting and indexing was decentralized
* BitTorrent is the fourth wave, where not just the file hosting is decentralized, but also the file serving--in that multiple individual users might contribute to serving a file, not any one single user.

The websites provided a variety of navigational metadata to users, including category tags like “Top Searches,” “Top 20 Movies,” “Top 20 TV Shows,” “Box Office Movies,” “High Quality DVD Rips” and “TV Show Releases,” and the Isohunt website's home page published the list of top 20 films to encourage their uploading. All of these category tags were filled with infringing files, and the plaintiffs introduced a survey claiming that 95% of downloads were infringing. (The court says "the precise percentage of infringement is irrelevant: the evidence clearly shows that Defendants’ users infringed on a significant scale"). The website also included the term "warez" in the metatags.

[An aside: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, DON’T USE KEYWORD METATAGS EVER FOR ANYTHING. Google ignores them but judges still think keyword metatags mean something, and at least one technical "expert" (of questionable competence) is erroneously claiming that Google does index them.]

The court also points out Fung’s ill-advised statements, such as a statement that "copyright infringement when it occurs may not necessarily be stealing" and a public acknowledgement that the availability of an infringing file increased traffic. Fung also allegedly provided technical support to users trying to download infringing files and downloaded infringing files himself through the sites. I had thought that most website operators had learned from the Grokster opinion not to say and do such things, but maybe Fung didn't get the memo.

Inducement

We have long wondered how the Grokster opinion would apply to torrent sites. 4 1/2 years ago, right after the Grokster case came out, guest blogger Mark Schultz predicted that the Grokster ruling meant that "Some services that use BitTorrent to promote infringing file sharing for commercial gain, like the now defunct Suprnova.org, are most likely in trouble." It's taken a while to prove him right, but I think he nailed it.

Doctrinally, the court says that inducement is a distinct prong of contributory copyright liability. As a result, the court doesn't talk about the traditional contributory or vicarious infringement tests because 'Defendants’ inducement liability is overwhelmingly clear."

The Legal Standard

The court initially defines inducement as when "the defendant has undertaken purposeful acts aimed at assisting and encouraging others to infringe copyright." Contrast the precise holding of the Grokster Supreme Court opinion, which said that inducement occurs when a defendant "distribute[s] a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement." It's unclear why the court offered its own broader definition of inducement; the court later quotes the Grokster language and explores it in some detail. I believe this court's definition is impermissibly broader than the Supreme Court's standard. At minimum, I expect future courts will adhere to the exact words of the governing Supreme Court precedent, especially when completely bypassing the venerable contributory infringement test.

Direct Infringement

The court starts by determining if website users directly infringe. In FN 18, the court says downloading a file via BitTorrent counts as copyright infringement; "To conclude otherwise would be to elevate form over substance." Fung argued that many website users were located outside the US, so their infringements shouldn't count. I'm not sure about this defense strategy. It wasn't a jurisdictional attack (there were US servers), and even the defense acknowledged (FN 17) that at least a quarter of site users were from the US. The court concludes "Plaintiffs’ evidence conclusively establishes that individuals located in the United States have used Fung’s sites to download copies of copyrighted works," and I don't see how the defendants expected they could establish otherwise.

Inducement

Having found direct infringers, the court cites the following four factors as evidence that the websites induced their infringement:

1) the websites "disseminated a message 'designed to stimulate others' to commit infringements." Supporting facts include Fung’s website statements encouraging/assisting infringement, Fung’s personal campaign to encourage infringement, the “warez” metatags, and various forms of metadata on the website, including honors bestowed on frequent uploading users and taxonomical categories like “Box Office Movie.” With respect to the taxonomical metadata, the court says "Defendants designed the websites and included a feature that collects users’ most commonly searched-for titles. The fact that these lists almost exclusively contained copyrighted works…and that Defendants never removed these lists is probative of Defendants’ knowledge of ongoing infringement and failure to stop this infringement."

2) "directly assisted users in engaging in infringement," such as technical support for users trying to find or enjoy copyrighted works.

The court also attributes the statements of site admins and moderators to the defendants, such as the admins’ technical support to people looking for or downloading copyrighted works. This part of the opinion was especially troublesome. Generally, UGC site moderators are unquestionably independent contractors, not agents, so the website isn't automatically liable for their statements and actions. Here, the court finds an "apparent agency" relationship between the admins and moderators because "Defendants assign this status and give these individuals authority to moderate the forums and user discussions. These individuals were under the control of Defendants and assigned duties related to the administration of the web forums." I believe this is a bad ruling, both normatively and doctrinally (see contrary discussion in, e.g., the Furber and Higher Balance cases in the 230 context). I could see UGC sites deciding to crack down or even eliminate non-employee moderators based on the agency exposure suggested by this opinion.

The court also rejects the defendants’ silly and facially futile First Amendment challenge to the use of the defendants' and moderators' statements as evidence of inducement.

3) the websites’ technical configuration, including the facilitation of BitTorrent downloads and categorization of downloads using "screener" and "PPV" (an acronym for "pay per view") tags, both of which are likely to categorize likely-to-infringe files. Fung also spidered other sites, such as Pirate Bay, to locate more torrent downloads.

4) the websites’ advertising business model where copyrighted works acted as a traffic draw.

The court brusquely rejects the defendants’ argument that infringing activity wasn't taking place on the sites, citing the language from Aimster that "Defendants’ 'ostrich-like refusal to discover the extent to which its system was being used to infringe copyright is merely another piece of evidence' of Defendants’ purposeful, culpable conduct in inducing third party infringement."

The 512 Safe Harbor

Fung's websites link to the actual BitTorrent files, so 512(d) (the DMCA safe harbor for linking to infringing works) theoretically applies. However, this court acknowledges the statutory ambiguity of whether the DMCA 512(c) and (d) safe harbor insulate all three flavors of copyright liability (direct, contributory or vicarious) or just direct infringement. You may recall the recent UMG v. Veoh case indicated that vicarious copyright infringement differed from the safe harbor exclusions, even though both tests use identical words--meaning that the safe harbor had the theoretical capacity to insulate vicarious infringement.

This court starts off with an alternative statutory interpretation:

In many ways, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is simply a restatement of the legal standards establishing secondary copyright infringement - in many cases, if a defendant is liable for secondary infringement, the defendant is not entitled to Digital Millennium Copyright Act immunity; if a defendant is not liable for secondary infringement, the defendant is entitled to Digital Millennium Copyright Act immunity.

While the court had some weasel words in that statement, it's clear this court thinks the DMCA online safe harbors only insulate against direct infringement, not secondary infringement. The interplay between the safe harbors and secondary infringement remains a multi-billion statutory ambiguity (see, e.g., the Viacom v. YouTube litigation).

As applied to this case, the court proceeded to say that the defendants had the requisite red flags of obvious infringement (or at least turned a willful blind eye to them) to disqualify them from 512 protection. This is a realpolitik conclusion: the court says the websites got 10M visitors a month, at least 25% from the US, who could access files that were 90-95% infringing. Like the Grokster court, the judge couldn't ignore this overall volume of infringing activity, and it says that neither could Fung. The fact that the websites presented metadata about popular downloads only exacerbated the problem. As the court says, "unless Defendants somehow refused to look at their own webpages, they invariably would have been known that (1) infringing material was likely to be available and (2) most of Defendants’ users were searching for and downloading infringing material."

The court concluded by saying that "the statutory safe harbors are based on passive good faith conduct aimed at operating a legitimate internet business," so “inducement liability and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbors are inherently contradictory.” Thus, the DMCA safe harbors were categorically unavailable to the defense once the court concluded that they had induced infringement.

Although this bright line rule, starkly stated, makes me nervous, it is implicitly consistent with Grokster. After all, the Supreme Court didn't even mention 512 in its Grokster opinion. One way of interpreting that omission is that, as this court says, 512 is irrelevant when inducement applies. Fortunately, this situation may not arise very often given the relative paucity of inducement cases.

Implications

Wired indicates that Fung is mulling an appeal. The opinion does have some goofy quirks, but the Napster precedent might constrain the Ninth Circuit’s doctrinal flexibility. In the end, this looks like one of those cases where the defendants are going down one way or another.

For now, one way to read this case, especially in the context of Napster, Aimster, Grokster and the other P2P file sharing cases, is that courts don't really care how file sharing technology works under the hood. It doesn't matter much if the files are hosted or served centrally or not; they are all legally indistinguishable. Indeed, the court acknowledges as much in FN4, when it says that the ed2k-it website used eDonkey instead of BitTorrent but "'the basic elements of eDonkey and BitTorrent technology play similar roles,' and that the minor technical distinctions are not material to the present dispute."

Consistent with this reading, courts might assume that all P2P file sharing technology is illegitimate under the hood, which shifts the judicial inquiry to the "front end"--how did the defendant’s user interface help users navigate this presumptively illegitimate activity? Viewed that way, this is not a case about the legitimacy of BitTorrent as a technology. Instead, this case is about the legitimacy of a torrent site's marketing and customer relations. Fung's activities didn't pass muster here.

Like the Roommates.com case, this case raises some troublesome issues about the legal consequences of websites providing organizing and taxonomical metadata, such as providing lists of top downloads. This case makes all inferences against the website operators for organizing user activity into metadata when such organization may help highlight infringing activity. I fear that taxonomical metadata is becoming litigation bait--plaintiffs and judges will look there for problems, so website operators may need to beat them to the punch with proactive policing.

The discussion about moderators being agents is also troublesome. I hope other courts will be reluctant to follow this court's results-driven finding of agency. Otherwise, UGC websites should take a careful look at the cost-benefits of their existing moderator programs.

Overall, I believe this opinion reflects an ongoing strain of P2P doctrinal exceptionalism. I can rationalize the Napster ruling (and the many cases trying to follow in its footsteps) only by concluding that P2P copyright law irreconcilably deviates from mainstream copyright law. We have P2P copyright law on the one hand, and mainstream copyright law on the other, and it simply isn’t possible to harmonize them. If I’m right that there exists a branch of copyright law for P2P cases, this case is consistent with a results-driven decision where the court pre-determined that the defendants’ activities was illegitimate and needed to be stopped. Viewed that way, this case does not teach us much about non-P2P copyright law or about how "legitimate" websites should manage their affairs. Instead, I believe Veoh’s successful defenses--including Veoh’s proactive steps to suppress infringing activity--provide more insightful actionable lessons than the strictures of this case.

Posted by Eric at 09:41 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

December 29, 2009

Consumer Review Website Wins 230 Dismissal in Fourth Circuit--Nemet Chevrolet v. ConsumerAffairs.com

By Eric Goldman

Nemet Chevrolet Ltd. v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc., 2009 WL 5126224 (4th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009)

Introduction

Citing 47 USC 230, today the Fourth Circuit upheld a 12(b)(6) dismissal of defamation and related claims against a consumer review website. This case is noteworthy because the court rejected some common allegations that plaintiffs make to evade 230, so this case may help defendants get 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss more easily.

ConsumerAffairs.com is a consumer review website with a twist: it works in conjunction with a law firm that mines the submitted complaints for potential class action lawsuits. In June 2008, I blogged about the district court's 12(b)(6) dismissal of the case.

Development of the Reviews

Nemet tried two tactics in its complaint to draft around 230. First, it alleged that ConsumerAffairs.com partially developed 20 reviews. Nemet pled:

Upon information and belief, Defendant participated in the preparation of this complaint by soliciting the complaint, steering the complaint into a specific category designed to attract attention by consumer class action lawyers, contacting the consumer to ask questions about the complaint and to help her draft or revise her complaint, and promising the consumer that she could obtain some financial recovery by joining a class action lawsuit. Defendant is therefore responsible, in whole or in part, for developing the substance and content of the false complaint . . . about the Plaintiffs.

These allegations do not survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

* the website "structure and design" argument fails, despite Nemet's attempt to invoke Roommates.com, because ConsumerAffairs’ structure was not illegal. To me, the court's discussion reinforces that Roommates.com’ real holding is “If you don’t encourage illegal content, or design your website to require users to input illegal content, you will be immune.” Chalk this case up as yet another citation of Roommates.com for the defense.

* Asking users questions about their posts does not qualify as development.

* The unsupported assertion that ConsumerAffairs edited posts did not pass the Iqbal standard. Plus, as Zeran indicated, 230 protects editorial decisions, so the allegations needed to assert some editing beyond this protected zone.

Review Fabrication

Second, Nemet alleged that ConsumerAffairs fabricated 8 reviews. Nemet pled:

Because Plaintiffs cannot confirm that the [customer] complaint . . . was even created by a Nemet Motors Customer based on the date, model of car, and first name, Plaintiffs believe that the complaint. . . was fabricated by the Defendant for the purpose of attracting other consumer complaints. By authoring the complaint . . . the Defendant was therefore responsible for the substance and content of the complaint.

This allegation has an obvious (and IMO embarrassing) logic flaw. Even if Nemet can't use its records to validate the facts in a consumer review, ConsumerAffairs.com’s fabrication of the post is only one of many possible explanations. The court notes some other possible explanations: "the post could be anonymous, falsified by the consumer, or simply missed by Nemet." (I would also add the possibility of weak recordkeeping by Nemet). To try to get around this logical deficiency, Nemet marshals up some additional allegations:

(1) that Nemet has an excellent professional reputation, (2) none of the consumer complaints at issue have been reported to or acted upon by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, (3) Consumeraffairs.com’s sole source of income is advertising and this advertising is tied to its webpage content, and (4) some of the posts on Consumeraffairs.com’s website appeared online after their listed creation date

But all of these facts are non-sequiturs; none of them show that ConsumerAffairs fabricated the posts, and post-Iqbal these allegations are not enough to state a claim. The dissent disagreed with this conclusion (about the alleged fabrication) and would have allowed those claims to proceed.

230 as an Immunity Redux

In FN 4, the court notes that the Seventh Circuit questioned if 230(c)(1) was just a definitional section. Citing Zeran, which addressed this issue explicitly, the court says "Of whatever academic interest that distinction may be, our Circuit clearly views the § 230 provision as an immunity:" As a result, the court "aim[s] to resolve the question of § 230 immunity at the earliest possible stage of the case because that immunity protects websites not only from 'ultimate liability,' but also from 'having to fight costly and protracted legal battles.'" It looks like there could be a brewing catfight between circuits over whether 230(c)(1) is an immunity, an affirmative defense, a definitional section or something else.

Conclusion

Given that this court was bound by the Zeran precedent, it's perhaps not surprising that the court found 230 protection for a consumer review website. Nevertheless, by rejecting another plaintiff’s attempt to make hay from Roommates.com and rejecting weakly supported allegations of fabrication, this court gave defendants even more support to fend off claims that are, at their core, based on third party content.

The updated census of Roommates.com citations:

Roommates.com Cited for Defense (11 cases): GW Equity v. Xcentric, Best Western v. Furber, Goddard v. Google (and second ruling) Joyner v. Lazzareschi, Atlantic Records v. Project Playlist, Barnes v. Yahoo (note: although the case was a partial loss for the defendant, the Roommates.com discussion came in the defense-favorable part), Doe IX v. MySpace, Doe II v. MySpace, Dart v. Craigslist, Shiamili v. Real Estate Group, Nemet v. ConsumerAffairs

Roommates.com Cited for Plaintiff (2 cases): NPS v. StubHub, FTC v. Accusearch

Posted by Eric at 02:53 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

December 26, 2009

November-December 2009 Quick Links, Part 1

By Eric Goldman

Trademarks/Domain Names

* Yahoo and Mary Kay settled Mary Kay's trademark lawsuit over Yahoo's email shortcuts.

* uBID Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group Inc., No. 09-cv-2123 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009). uBid’s anti-domain name parking lawsuit failed on jurisdictional grounds. Tom O'Toole explains why this is an unusual jurisdictional ruling.

* Trademark Blog: “Sellify, operator of ONEQUALITY.COM, sues Amazon over Amazon affiliates' alleged misuse of ONEQUALITY.COM as Google keywords.”

* In an unenlightening memo opinion, Second Circuit affirms the Cintas v. Unite Here opinion involving union activists’ web activities using a target company’s trademark. My initial blog post on the case.

* Bloomberg: Buyers of counterfeit luxury goods understand they are getting counterfeits, and many of them upgrade to the real thing eventually.

* Transamerica v. Moniker Online Services, 2009 WL 4715853 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2009). Domain name registrar does not qualify for ACPA's registrar safe harbor when: "Transamerica alleges that Oversee and the Moniker Defendants, together with the ostensible registrants-the John Doe Defendants-are the de facto registrants of the domain names in question. Transamerica claims that Moniker was not merely acting as a registrant in providing registration services to the John Doe Defendants for the infringing domain names, but instead was part of a scheme to profit from the use of the infringing names. As Transamerica points out, Moniker receives a fee each time an internet user clicks on one of the links attached to the infringing domain sites; such payment establishes at least partial ownership in the domain name." Troubling ruling.

* SafeWorks, LLC v. Spydercrane.com, LLC (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2009). A trademark owner's preemptive registration of domain names containing typographical errors of the registrant's trademarks does not infringe a third party trademarks.

Marketing and Advertising

* In re Gemtronics (FTC ALJ decision Sept 16, 2009). A dietary supplement seller wasn't liable for comments on a website that it didn't own or control but (among other things) it had linked to. While this is great, I still believe the FTC needs to rethink its entire liability scheme of online content endorsement or adoption due to 47 USC 230. See 1, 2.

* Avvo settles Florida bar lawsuit and gets Florida to admit that client testimonials on Avvo aren't lawyer advertising. Rebecca explains why an analogous South Carolina regulation violates 47 USC 230.

* After the FDA spooked pharmaceutical companies to stop engaging in search advertising, the FDA held hearings on Internet pharmaceutical marketing. The Arnold & Porter recap. Ironically, BusinessWeek ran a story wondering if pharmaceutical ads reduce consumer demand.

* The FTC cracks down on online negative option/"continuity plan" offerings.

* In re Miva Inc. Securities Litigation, 2009 WL 3821146 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009). The court dismissed a securities class action lawsuit over Miva's/FindWhat's investor disclosures relating to click fraud and spyware. My initial blog post on the case.

* NYT: False advertising litigation is a growth industry.

Search Engines

* A Milwaukee lawyer has alleged that another lawyer buying keyword advertising triggered by his name violates his publicity rights. I’ve posted the complaint to Scribd.

* Google is now personalizing search results for everyone, not just logged-in users. In 2006, I wrote about how universal personalization would affect SEO and concerns about search engine bias. Danny Sullivan believes Google’s change deserves "extraordinary attention."

* Google took out an ad from itself to explain why its image search results for Michelle Obama contained an offensive result. This is after it first tried to remove the image on the pretext that the website was hosting malware.

* Danny Sullivan asks some good questions about Google's integration of Twitter into its search database.

* BusinessWeek: Matt Cutts, Google’s search engine anti-spam superstar, talks about his job. He doesn't sound like the most fun person to travel with

* Rose Hagan, Google's chief trademark counsel, is retiring after 7 years at Google. She leaves behind big shoes to fill.

Posted by Eric at 02:59 PM | Adware/Spyware , Derivative Liability , Domain Names , Licensing/Contracts , Marketing , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

December 22, 2009

Ripoff Report Not Bound by Takedown Injunction Against User--Blockowicz v. Williams

By Eric Goldman

Blockowicz v. Williams, 1:09-cv-03955 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009)

Last month, I wrote about the interaction between 47 USC 230 and FRCP 65. FRCP 65 says that anyone acting in concert with a litigant is obligated to honor an injunction against the litigant. 47 USC 230 says that websites can't be liable for user content. So, if a user is ordered to take down content he/she publishes on a third party website, must the publishing website comply with the order per FRCP 65, or it is free to ignore the injunction due to 47 USC 230?

To be fair, this issue only arises when a website won't voluntarily remove user content. As we know, many websites instantly fold when sent a nastygram, irrespective of 47 USC 230's protection, and even those that don't usually will cheerily comply with a court order. So to encounter the problem, a website would need an absolute no-takedown policy--even if the user requests the takedown, and even in the face of a court order against the user. Few websites have such absolute policies.

The Ripoff Report is one of those websites, however, and they ran into this issue recently. An individual posted allegedly defamatory remarks about the plaintiffs on Facebook, MySpace, complaintsboard, Ripoff Report and other websites. I believe these are the posts at issue (1, 2)--definitely not nice postings if untrue, and as usual for Ripoff Report, they showed up as top search results in Google (in case you're wondering, I nofollowed my links). The plaintiffs got a default judgment against the poster. The judgment included a takedown order, which the plaintiffs presented to Ripoff Report and the other websites. All of the other websites complied with the takedown order, but the Ripoff Report refused. Instead, the Ripoff Report argued (among other things) that it is not acting in concert with the poster and 47 USC 230 protects its publication decisions.

Surprisingly (to me), the judge agreed with the Ripoff Report. The judge skirted the 230 issue, instead concluding that Ripoff Report's relationship to the user is too "tenuous" (by entering into a user agreement for content publication) to constitute "acting in concert" under FRCP 65.

The court expressly acknowledges that its ruling means that defamatory content could be categorically immune from legal challenge: "The court is sympathetic to the Blockowiczs’ plight; they find themselves the subject of defamatory attacks on the internet yet seemingly have no recourse to have those statements removed from the public view." Although this is the right doctrinal result, the normative issues are still gnawing at me. I'm troubled that online content could be categorically off-limits from compelled takedown based on a service provider’s choices. In some circumstances, continued publication may not be the right result.

UPDATE: Comments from Nate Anderson at Ars Technica (including a more thorough recitation of the case's factual background) and Ben Sheffner (including links to many of the source materials in the case). It's crucial to understand that the judge's ruling turned solely on a statutory interpretation of FRCP 65 and not on how 47 USC 230 might interact with FRCP 65. So, in that sense, 230 is irrelevant to the question at hand. At the same time, as Sheffner notes, that interaction becomes relevant only because 230 bars a claim against the service provider.

Also, as much as I know people enjoy beating up on Ripoff Report, we should not forget that an integral part of this issue is Google's remarkably favorable indexing of Ripoff Report pages.

Posted by Eric at 06:44 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

December 21, 2009

Website Initially Denied 230 Dismissal But Gets It on Appeal--Shiamili v. Real Estate Group

By Eric Goldman

Shiamili v. Real Estate Group of New York, Inc., 2009 WL 4842470 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 17, 2009)

Unfortunately, I am only working from a short and opaque appellate memo. It appears that the defendant operated a website that "administered and chose" to publish user comments. A third party posted an allegedly defamatory comment about the plaintiff, an NYC real estate broker, to the website. On this basis, we know that the website isn't liable for the post per 47 USC 230. I don't think I could do a comprehensive census of message board/user comment cases, but similar defense wins in the past 5 years include Finkel v. Facebook, Cornelius v. DeLuca, Joyner v. Lazzareschi, Raggi v. Las Vegas Police, Higher Balance v. Quantum, Best Western v. Furber, Gregerson v. Vilana, Universal Communications System v. Lycos, Eckert v. Microsoft, DiMeo v. Max, Hammer v. Amazon and Faegre & Benson v. Purdy (wow, this list is a blast from the past!). I'm not including the pure web hosting cases or any of the Ripoff Report cases, yet I'm sure there are other cases I'm forgetting. Indeed, given the airtight nature of the precedent, I personally think plaintiffs should be sanctioned for bringing such meritless cases.

Instead, the lower court initially denied the defendant's motion to dismiss in January 2009. Because this case is in state court, I don't have easy access to the state court opinion to see how the judge got it wrong. Fortunately, in a brief and unanimous opinion, the appellate court corrected this rogue trial court judge and dismissed the case per 230. Because the appellate opinion is so brief, I'm going to quote the court's substantive application of 230 to this case in its entirety:

Plaintiff's claim is barred by the CDA. The complaint makes no allegation that defendants authored any defamatory statements. It merely alleges that defendants “choose and administer content” that appears on the Web site. This is precisely the kind of function that the CDA immunizes ( see e.g. Fair Hous. Council, 521 F3d at 1173-1174; Batzel, 333 F3d at 1031). Even accepting as true all of plaintiff's allegations and giving it the benefit of all favorable inferences ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88 [1994] ), the complaint does not raise an inference that defendants were “information content providers” within the meaning of the CDA. Plaintiff argues that defendants engaged in a calculated effort to encourage, keep and promote “bad” content on the Web site. However, message board postings do not cease to be data “provided by another information content provider” merely because “the construct and operation” of the Web site might have some influence on the content of the postings ( see Universal, 478 F3d at 422; see also Chicago Lawyers' Comm., 519 F3d at 671-672; Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, 339 F3d 1119, 1124-1125 [9th Cir2003] ).

Where, as here, there is no allegation that defendants authored the defamatory statements, it is not appropriate to permit discovery to determine if a cause of action exists ( see Walsh v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 289 A.D.2d 842, 844 [2001]; see also Universal, 478 F3d at 425-42; cf. Fair Hous. Council, 521 F3d at 1174).

Two observations:

1) I believe there are some folks who believe that a website becomes liable for any user content it "encourages." This is one possible reading of Roommates.com, and it underlies the government enforcement agencies' (e.g., SEC and FTC) content endorsement theories. However, I don't see precedent supporting that proposition at all. This case, like so many others, doesn't care if the website encourages the allegedly tortious content. Instead, the only relevant inquiry is whether the content originated from a third party. If so, 230 applies without any need for further inquiry.

2) This is yet another case where the court cited Roommates.com in favor of the defense. The updated census of Roommates.com citations:

Roommates.com Cited for Defense (10 cases): GW Equity v. Xcentric, Best Western v. Furber, Goddard v. Google (and second ruling) Joyner v. Lazzareschi, Atlantic Records v. Project Playlist, Barnes v. Yahoo (note: although the case was a partial loss for the defendant, the Roommates.com discussion came in the defense-favorable part), Doe IX v. MySpace, Doe II v. MySpace, Dart v. Craigslist and now Shiamili v. Real Estate Group

Roommates.com Cited for Plaintiff (2 cases): NPS v. StubHub, FTC v. Accusearch

The 10th Circuit beachhead for Roommates.com is troubling, but overall I think it's entirely clear that Roommates.com has not changed 230 jurisprudence in any meaningful way--except that it may be giving plaintiffs false hope of success and causing them to overinvest in their cases.

UPDATE: The trial court opinion, which quotes some of the allegedly defamatory posts.

UPDATE 2: The complaint. This has a full list of the alleged defamatory postings. It also indicates that the venue in question was a website/blog called "shittyhabitats.com," apparently now defunct. The archive.org page from Feb. 2, 2007 and Feb. 5, 2008.

Posted by Eric at 09:18 AM | Derivative Liability , Internet History | TrackBack

December 18, 2009

Top Cyberlaw Developments of 2009

By John E. Ottaviani

(Thanks to Eric for letting me post this list here!)

[Eric's note: some of you may recall John, a regular blog guest contributor from 2005-07. It's great to have another contribution from him.]

Eric will post his own list later, but I thought we could start off the holiday season with one person’s view of the top Cyberlaw developments of 2009. It was an interesting year. While intellectual property issues continue to dominate, and we continue to see plaintiffs and their attorneys running smack into Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, we’ve also seen developments in the areas of Constitutional law, criminal law, and state and federal regulation. So, let’s recap 2009. Unlike David Letterman’s lists, this list is in no particular order of importance.

1. File Sharing Decisions.

After years of lawsuits against file sharers, we finally have two trial decisions. Both held against the peer-to-peer file sharers. Jammie Thomas managed to turn a 2007 verdict of $222,000 (which was later thrown out due to a mistrial) into a 2009 verdict of $1.29 Million. Her motion to reduce the award is pending.

Joel Tenenbaum received more favorable treatment and was subjected to only a $675,000 jury verdict after he admitted liability and his fair use defense was rejected by Judge Gertner. His motion to appeal/reduce the award is due to be filed in early January. Judge Gertner wrote a compelling decision urging Congress to modify the strict liability consequences of new technologies such as peer-to -peer file sharing. In her decision rejecting the fair use defense, Judge Gertner implored Congress “to amend the [Copyright Act] to reflect the realities of file sharing. There is something wrong with a law that routinely threatens teenagers and students with astronomical penalties for an activity whose implications they may not have fully understood. The injury to the copyright holder may be real, and even substantial, but, under the statute, the record companies do not even have to prove actual damages.” We’ll see if Congress listens.

2. Rise of Copyright First Sale Doctrine.

There were several decisions that turned on applications of the copyright “first sale” doctrine to new online situations. Section 209(a) of the Copyright Act permits the owner of a lawfully made copy of a work to sell or dispose of that copy without the consent of the copyright owner.

First, the held that resales of the AutoCAD software were permitted under the first sale limitations in Section 109(a). The court found that although the underlying documents were styled as “licenses,” the fact that the licensee was entitled to perpetual possession of the copies was the key fact.

We also had two cases (John Wiley & Sons; Pearson Education v. Liu) dealing with the importation of copyrighted works (mostly textbooks) printed abroad and then imported into the United States for sale. Two courts said these transactions are not protected by the first sale doctrine because of the importation provision in Section 602. The courts so far have been following dicta in the Supreme Court’s 1998 Quality King case that goods manufactured overseas and then imported are not protected by the first sale right, despite their reluctance to do so. We may get a resolution of this issue in 2010. The U.S. Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in the Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Omega, which is on a petition for certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A third entry is Apple v. Psystar. Psystar specialized in creating copies of Apple’s Macintosh OS-X operating System and loading them onto Mac “clones.” The court rejected the first-sale doctrine defense because Psystar’s copies of the Macintosh OS-X operating system were not “lawfully made” within the meaning of Section 109. The parties subsequently settled all claims except for copyright infringement, and Apple obtained a permanent injunction against Psystar.

3. Demise of “Use in Commerce” Defense in Keyword Cases.

In Rescuecom v. Google, the Second Circuit reversed the district court and said that Google’s sale of trademarked keywords as ad triggers constitute a “use in commerce.” This probably is the end of the “use in commerce” defense in keyword advertising cases, which will now turn more on likelihood of confusion (or initial interest confusion) factors.

4. Internet Gambling.

Internet gambling continues to be regulated by a tangle of federal laws ill-adapted for the purpose. Some of the laws date back to the 1961 adoption of the federal Wire Act. This is an areas where Congress should really clean things up, especially with criminal liability sometimes at stake.

Proponents of online gambling took a couple of hits in 2009. In Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association v. Holder, the Third Circuit upheld challenges to the Unlawful Intent Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) on Constitutional grounds. The UIGEA does not prohibit Internet gambling, but does prohibit gambling businesses from accepting financial payments in connection with bets that are illegal under any federal or state law. (This Act has effectively forced legitimate offshore gambling sites to stop taking bets from the United States). The Third Circuit held that the phrase “unlawful Internet gambling” is not vague, and that there is no Constitutionally protected privacy right to gamble in one’s home.

Earlier in the year, the Department of Justice ordered four banks to freeze over $34 million in payments owed to about 27,000 poker players. Although the legality of online poker in the United States is a gray area, the DOJ takes the position that online poker games are prohibited by the federal Wire Act. The DOJ position runs counter to several court decisions that have refused to apply the Wire Act to non-sports related Internet gambling. After the funds were seized, the affected poker sites reportedly reimbursed the players the money that was seized.

5. State Attempts to Regulate the Internet.

This trend, a favorite target of Eric’s ire, continued in 2009. Some more notable attempts include Maine’s passage of a little COPPA Act, banning the use of personal information about minors for marketing purposes (which the Maine Attorney General then refused to enforce), Kentucky’s seizing of domain names associated with alleged gambling websites (the legality of which is pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court), and Utah and other state’s attempts to put sex offender information online or require sex offenders to register websites to which they belong and their passwords.

6. Attempts to Criminalize Breaches of Terms of Use.

Lori Drew created a fake MySpace profile to humiliate a 13-year-old neighbor girl and was subsequently blamed for the girl’s suicide death. Drew was convicted of three misdemeanor counts of unauthorized access to computers under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating MySpace’s terms of service. In United States v. Drew, the court dismissed Lori Drew’s conviction, concluding that MySpace’s terms of service were Constitutionally vague. The result is not surprising, because terms of service are not generally written with criminal prosecution in mind. The MySpace terms at issue prohibited a wide variety of conduct but did not explain what activities would make a user’s access “unauthorized”. The user’s conduct was reprehensible, but not criminal.

7. Online Endorsements.

In October, for the first time since 1980, the Federal Trade commission updated its guidelines for advertisers on how to keep their endorsements and testimonial advertisements in line with the FTC laws. The new guidelines explicitly target online endorsements by bloggers and others who receive cash or in-kind payments to review a product. Bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. While the new guidelines caused a stir among bloggers, they seem to be a reasonable extension of the FTC’s disclosure guidelines in other contexts

8. DMCA Take-Down Notices.

In UMG Recordings v. Veoh Networks, we received some further guidance on what constitutes a proper take-down notice. Here, the court said the copyright owner has the burden of identifying “potentially infringing materials.” A letter merely listing recording artists whose works were allegedly infringing did not give the Internet Service Provider actual knowledge of infringement because the letter does not comply with the DMCA requirements. The court also said that the ISP was not on general notice of copyright infringement just because the website allows users to post music files, which are frequently infringing content.

9. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

There are too many cases to list here, and I am sure Eric has done (or will do) his own exhaustive compilation. The courts clearly expanded the scope of the Section 230 defense in various Craigslist cases (no liability for advertisements for guns or prostitution).

Barnes v. Yahoo showed us that service providers should not make statements and then not follow though. In that case, the plaintiff’s ex-boyfirend created fake personal ads for her on Yahoo and impersonated her in various online forums. She asked Yahoo to take the information down,. A Yahoo employee told her that Yahoo would take the profile down, but Yahoo did not do so until after the complaint was filed.. The Ninth Circuit upheld Yahoo’s Section 230 defenses for claims that Yahoo had an obligation to take the fake profiles down, and that Yahoo did not try to remove some objectionable material. But the court did permit the plaintiff’s claim to go forward that Yahoo had breached its oral contract with her to take the material down, which the Court held amounted to a modification of the “baseline” Section 230 rule.

10. Right to Privacy.

When someone publishes something on a MySpace website without her full name, and then deletes the post, does she have an expectation of privacy? In Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., the California Court of Appeals said no. Here, the plaintiff posted an essay that was derogatory of her home town on her MySpace page and then deleted it six days later. In the meantime, the principal at the local high school saw the posting and submitted the poem to a local paper, where the editor (a friend of the principal) published the poem in the Letters to the Editor column and signed the plaintiff’s full name to it. The author and her family received death threats and her father had to close a 20-year old family business. However, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the principal did not invade the author’s privacy by handing the posting to the editor, and further held that the editor did not violate the author’s rights when it published her full name. (The case was remanded in order to address a claim of intentional infliction of emotional stress.)

Let’s hope 2010 brings even more exciting Cyberlaw developments. We have the potential for two Supreme Court rulings, in the Costco case (discussed above) and the Bilski case, which may address the validity of business method patents.

Posted by John Ottaviani at 07:04 AM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Domain Names , E-Commerce , Licensing/Contracts , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

December 17, 2009

Barnes v. Yahoo Survives Dismissal Motion on Remand

By Eric Goldman

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2009 WL 4823840 (D. Or. Dec. 11, 2009)

You recall Barnes v. Yahoo, the case where Yahoo promised to promptly take down a fake profile created by a third party but didn't do so. The district court initially dismissed the case on 47 USC 230 grounds, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in an opinion that stirred up some trouble due to its sloppy 230 discussion. The Ninth Circuit subsequently fixed its worst excesses in an amended opinion and sent the case back to the district court with a revived promissory estoppel claim. Following that ruling, Barnes amended her complaint and Yahoo sought to dismiss it.

The district court opinion addresses three points:

1) The Ninth Circuit had not validated Barnes' promissory estoppel claim but only concluded that a 230(c)(1) defense wasn't available.

2) Barnes sufficiently alleged reliance when she diffused the media coverage of her story based on Yahoo's takedown promise.

3) Barnes sufficiently alleged that she detrimentally changed her position due to Yahoo's promise because the fake profiles were online longer.

I am a little surprised to see Yahoo even try the motion to dismiss. I think this case is a great candidate for settlement.

The case library:

* Amended Ninth Circuit Opinion
* Barnes' petition for rehearing
* Public Citizen et al amicus brief in support of rehearing
* Yahoo's petition for rehearing
* Ninth Circuit opinion and my blog post on it
* Ninth Circuit oral arguments
* District court opinion and my blog post on it
* Barnes' response to Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's brief in support of its motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's notice of removal to federal court (which contains Barnes' initial complaint)

The Justia page has even more materials from the district court proceedings.

Posted by Eric at 09:19 AM | Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts | TrackBack

December 11, 2009

Denver University “Cyber Civil Rights” Symposium Recap

By Eric Goldman

The week before Thanksgiving, I attended an unusual symposium sponsored by the University of Denver Law Review entitled “Cyber Civil Rights: New Challenges for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in our Networked Age.” The symposium covered standard Cyberlaw topics, but the raison d'être was University of Maryland law professor Danielle Citron’s two recent articles on online harassment of women: "Law's Expressive Value in Combating Cyber Gender Harassment" (Michigan Law Review) and "Cyber Civil Rights" (Boston University Law Review). It is unusual for a law school to celebrate another school’s professor and her research, especially when the professor is fairly junior. Nevertheless, Danielle’s participation brought together academics from both the Cyberlaw and civil rights communities, which provided a rare and interesting mix of folks..

First Panel

Danielle Citron started off by recapping her two papers. Online participation, such as blogging, is essential to professional standing, and employers are reviewing online profiles of prospective employees as part of their hiring considerations. However, women are being targeted for abuse online. These attacks are harming women by changing their online and offline activities, reducing their job opportunities, and causing women to change their gender representations online. Further, folks are trivializing these problems. Women are underreporting the attacks, and law enforcement only intervenes when there are offline harms. New laws can serve an expressive function to communicate that online attacks against women are socially unacceptable. The new laws can validate women’s feelings that they have been harmed and encourage law enforcement to pursue more cases.

Commenting on the papers, Robert Kaczorowski of Fordham Law (and Danielle’s stepdad) made an extended analogy between the Ku Klux Klan and cybermobs.

Wendy Seltzer asked if we could deemphasize the effect of words rather than prohibit them. Danielle responded that we don’t know how seriously to take any particular threat.

An audience member asked if is there a difference between mobs and individual actors who are just taking advantage of being anonymous. Danielle answered that groups can become more extreme online. I think this point deserves more exploration: a series of uncoordinated individual decisions to “pile on” to an attack can look like a coordinated attack to the victim. This is part of why I thought the KKK references were puzzling—KKK activities are clearly coordinated, while online attacks against women can succeed without any coordination or ongoing connection between the attackers.

Paul Ohm argued that that legal solutions are better for cyber civil rights problems than technological solutions. Paul discussed what he labeled “Felten’s Third Law.” (He doesn’t know of two earlier laws named for Ed Felten; he just assumes they exist given Ed’s impressive and influential oeuvre). As articulated by Paul, Felten’s Third Law is that in Cyberlaw conflicts, lawyers love technical solutions and technologists love legal solutions. In other words, we love the solution we don’t know because we assume it has to be better than the one we do. As both a law professor and technologist, Paul picks law over technology for these problems.

Paul categorically rejects any technical solution that would create a “fully identified Internet.” For example, we should not mandate server log retention because we know the logs will be co-opted to regulate other forms of unwanted content, not just online harassment.

Wendy Seltzer discussed the unintended consequences of legal intervention. For example, mandatory Internet filtering in school libraries hasn’t stopped kids from bypassing the filters, but it has facilitated a marketplace for improving filtering technologies that has benefited repressive regimes. Another example: anti-circumvention technology fails to restrict copying but has reduced innovation around DRMed content. Wendy also noted how norms can help curb abuses. For example, while there are online cesspools, she praised Wikipedia’s evolving guidelines for living people’s biographies.

In response, Danielle admitted that her solutions need to be more surgical. She said she might consider moving from a notice-and-takedown model to a notice-and-preserve model for intermediaries.

Second Panel

This panel was composed of three women academics from the civil rights community, so it was a noticeable shift from the typical Cyberlaw academic discussion.

Mary Anne Franks is a University of Chicago Bigelow Fellow and soon-to-be full-time law professor. She expresses our collective disappointment that cyberspace isn’t a utopia that allows people to escape offline discrimination and harassment. She laments that women can lose control of their identities online, such as when someone creates a fake online profile in their names.

She then addressed how cyberspace is unique/special/different with respect to gender harassment. Many commentators try to duck cyberspace exceptionalism, so it was refreshing to see her tackle the issue squarely. Existing offline discrimination/harassment laws assume interactions between repeat players at work and school; online harassment can be divorced totally from any existing social networks. However, because the online activities still harm targeted individuals at work and school, we should treat the harms the same. Offline, there are switching costs to changing jobs or school; online, search engines’ consolidation of results for search on a person’s name creates a different type of switching cost. In terms of supervisory power, she thinks web operators have analogous control to employers or school administrators. Thus, when web operators receive notice of online harassment, they should have a duty to do something about it. Offline, employers can develop a variety of responses and policies to combat workplace harassment. Web operators should have similar latitude; for example, they can delete offending posts or suspend/ban accounts.

Helen Norton, a University of Colorado law professor, did not share Danielle’s optimism (expressed in her first article) that existing discrimination laws can curb online harassment. Instead, Helen thinks a new civil rights statute is needed, but she might limit its remedies to exclude money damages. Helen is pessimistic that there will be regulation any time soon, noting that it can take years to enact civil rights legislation. Helen would also like to see more precise definitions of the exact harms that women are experiencing only online.

Nancy Ehrenreich, a Denver University law professor, began her talk by saying that we should not overstate the Internet’s benefits. She then clarified that we should not assume that disadvantaged folks can overcome barriers online. For example, we impose cultural categories on people in every interaction, so even if people try to mask their identity online, they can’t really escape. She wondered why we aren’t talking about an anti-discrimination law for the web. Her concern is that discrimination denies individuals access to the Internet.

In Q&A, Paul Ohm observed that civil rights scholars often invoke free speech as the countervailing concern to their desired regulations, but Cyberlaw scholars are often more interested in other “generative” effects of the Internet, such as new business models, new labor models and new modes of production.

Panel 3

James Grimmelmann (see his slides) started with the Skanks in NYC case. In that case, the defendant criticized someone else in her social network on a blog, calling the plaintiff (among other unflattering things) a “skank.” The plaintiff sued to obtain the blogger’s identity. After a successful unmasking, the plaintiff dropped the lawsuit, having successfully publicly shamed the blogger.

James hypothesized that this unmasking and shaming was an appropriate remedy—the blogger got shamed (like “an eye for an eye”), and unmasking is a better outcome than other legal remedies like damage suits. James then posited a thought exercise that provided plaintiffs with an expedited unmasking procedure if they drop any damages claim. This would have a number of benefits. Unmasking curbs online harassment is especially effective at busting online mobs. Also, an unmasking remedy avoids messy debates over the First Amendment’s scope, and it may be more desirable than trying to hold online providers liable.

Having advanced his own strawman, James then cut it down. In some cases, defamation remedies may be more desirable, and plaintiffs may not know that until they learn the putative wrongdoer’s identity. In other cases, plaintiffs who just want unmasking would appreciate a lower legal hurdle. Also, we provide legal protection for anonymity for good reasons.

James’ lessons from the thought exercise: we should consider ways to decouple an unmasking remedy from litigation. At the same time, we need to protect defendants from pretextual unmasking; in some cases, retaliation is a big concern, and we should incorporate this concern into the unmasking decision.

From Chris Wolf’s talk (see his full remarks), the most interesting thing I learned is that 18 states have laws banning wearing masks in public, enacted to suppress KKK activities. This was the second speaker’s KKK reference of the day, and it made me wonder if we were experiencing some variation of Godwin’s Law.

Panel 4

Viva Moffat observed that secondary liability issues generate the most heat in online harassment discussions. She expressed concern that imposing legal duties on third parties may not help law’s norm-shaping effect, and it’s not appropriate to impose liability just because the provider has deeper pockets or the direct actor can’t be found. She also suggested that imposing liability on third parties creates a greater risk of collateral damage than direct liability. [Note: I would like to know more about this last assertion. I suspect we cannot make a utilitarian calculation a priori]. As a result, she favors focusing more efforts on sharpening direct liability.

Ed Felten talked about identifying and anonymizing online activity. He explained the usual sequence of events in chasing bad online content:

log file => IP address => identity => justice

But the IP address => identity step breaks down when users use an anonymizing proxy or the user’s network uses network address translation (used by home wireless routers or in coffee shops) and all connected devices’ requests share a single IP address. He said that a majority of Internet connections use NAT.

Because IP address tracebacks can dead-end at the intermediary, an IP address can reveal too little information. However, even when users aren’t investigatory targets, IP addresses can reveal too much information, such as geolocation. This paradox—IP addresses simultaneously reveal both too much and too little information—reflects that the IP address system was built for routing, not identification. So could we design a better authenticating technology?

He then conducted a “semi-realistic” thought experiment of a new technological “tag” that could be used instead of IP addresses. This tag could have the following attributes:

* can be placed by any intermediary
* conveys no information about the sender unless unwrapped by the intermediary (presumably for good legal cause)
* unwrapping the tag yields the best identity information the intermediary has
* the tag’s use is voluntary as a technical matter
* the tag is removable as a technical matter

I then batted clean-up. A summary of my remarks:

Today’s conversation has revisited long-standing Cyberlaw issues, such as:

* anonymity v. accountability, and who should be responsible for online content and actions
* cyberspace as a physical place. See, e.g., Noah v. AOL (an online discrimination case), National Federation of the Blind v. Target (also an online discrimination case) and Estavillo v. Sony
* cyberspace exceptionalism and cyberspace utopianism (on the latter point, see my article on search engine utopianism)
* when is the optimal time to regulate rapidly evolving technology? Early, when the technology is still in its infancy, or later, when market forces and new technological evolutions may have cured the early problems?

Danielle’s articles convinced me that women are experiencing serious harms online that men—including me—could easily trivialize. Danielle’s articles also convinced me that online harassment has strong parallels to the 1970s legal evolution of workplace harassment doctrines, where a big part of the battle was to get people to take the harms seriously.

While I find a lot of descriptive value in Danielle’s work, the normative implications are not as clear. As usual with attempts to regulate rapidly evolving technology, there are many important but overwhelmingly hard definitional challenges, such as who is an “intermediary,” what are “online mobs” and what constitutes online “harassment.” For example, I do not think the Skanks in NYC incident is an online harassment case or an “attack,” but James Grimmelmann’s talk assumed those characterizations.

While we can debate what should be the right level of regulatory intervention, we should not overlook that Congress already enacted a law squarely governing intermediary liability for online harassment: 47 USC 230. The angst that prompted this conference—bad behavior online—is the logical consequences of 230’s broad immunity. The statute enables websites to adopt policies that they will not police user content or retain server logs of user activity. These choices aren’t a surprise or a per se abuse of the immunity; instead, they are the unavoidable implications of Congress’ action.

We might question Congress’ wisdom in adopting 230, but we should not diminish its potential importance to the Internet as we know it. [In Q&A, Chris Wolf asked about the comparative experience in countries that don’t have such broad immunity. In those countries, we know that websites take down user content much more freely, and I believe that the most interesting UGC innovations are all taking place here in the US, not countries with more restrictive UGC liability.] I can, at most, only prove correlation and not causation, but I believe 230 is one of the main causal reasons why the Internet has succeeded so well.

When I speak around the country about 230, I often encounter folks who generally accept 230’s immunity scope but want just one new exception, i.e., their pet topic. If everyone got their “just one” exception, the law would be eviscerated. (I said it would be Swiss-cheesed to death; maybe I should have said it would be overcome by a thousand duck bites). I’m not rejecting new exceptions categorically (they should be each considered on their own merits), but in aggregate 230’s immunization benefits are actually quite precarious. I believe 230 works precisely because of its strength and simplicity, so adding more exceptions could significantly reduce its efficacy.

I concluded my remarks by observing that online harassment is a subspecies of bullying and incivil behavior in our society. While we can and should work to curb online harassment, I am more interested in addressing bullying and incivility in all its forms, wherever it takes place.

In this regard, I have been impressed by how my son’s school is proactively addressing bullying. See more about this effort, called Project Cornerstone. The school is teaching kids not to bully or to tolerate being bullied, and the project gives bullied kids tools to go on the offensive against bullies. There’s no guarantee that anti-bullying programs will work in the short or long run, but I remain hopeful that online harassment today partially reflects that many current Internet users never got any anti-bullying education. Perhaps, then, online harassment issues will naturally abate (without any regulatory intervention) as new generation of Internet users, better educated about bullying, come onto the Internet.

Following my remarks, we had more Q&A.

Paul Ohm Q: Some cyber folks argue against secondary liability because they believe that a victim can pursue a direct action, but Ed’s talk suggests that user anonymity will continue to be possible.

Mary Anne Franks: civil rights isn’t about individual claims because victims have to bear too high a burden to pursue claims. Instead, civil rights are about changing large-scale social norms. The goal is to achieve anti-discrimination by any means necessary. Thus, civil rights scholars have already discussed and concluded that it’s appropriate to impose liability on intermediaries like employers and schools.

Danielle: intermediaries are the lowest cost avoiders.

James Grimmelmann: no, the harassers are the lowest cost avoiders. Civil rights folks would get more support from the Cyberlaw crowd if they focused their regulatory desires towards intermediaries who are in active concert with the bad actors.

Danielle's Wrap-Up

We all agree that:

* education can make a big difference
* online communities need to self-police
* there are numerous limits to using the law as a solution, including that lawsuits don’t make sense and 230’s immunity.

We don’t agree on what to do next. There are First Amendment limits, and technology doesn’t offer any panaceas.

Posted by Eric at 07:12 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability , Internet History , Publicity/Privacy Rights | TrackBack

December 08, 2009

Record Label Sues Google and Microsoft for Linking to Infringing Music--Blues Destiny v. Google

By Eric Goldman

Blues Destiny Records LLC v. Google, Inc., 3:09-cv-00538-WS-EMT (N.D. Fla. complaint filed Dec. 7, 2009) [warning: 1.5MB PDF]

Blues Destiny Records, a small Blues music label, doesn't like RapidShare, a website that allows users to publish files, because users are posting its copyrighted music there. It also doesn't like that people who search for the label's artists in Google and Microsoft get search results that link to sites that link to allegedly infringing copyrighted copies on RapidShare. The complaint was ambiguously worded in describing whether Google and Microsoft directly link to RapidShare or only indirectly link to sites that link to RapidShare, but my own searches indicated that Google's search results did not take searchers directly to RapidShare. So I believe the information flows are something like this:

Uploading user => RapidShare => site linking to RapidShare => search engine => searcher/downloading user, who goes to linking site and then follows the link to RapidShare to complete the allegedly illegal download

As is typical for lawsuits of this nature, the copyright owner didn't sue either the uploading or downloading users. The copyright owner also didn't sue the individuals who posted the links that take people to RapidShare. Instead, the copyright owner brings a frontal 17 USC 512 assault by suing RapidShare (theoretically eligible for 512(c) for hosting the infringing files) and the search engines, who are putatively covered by 512(d) for linking to infringing files (although this claim appears to be even more attenuated if the search engines actually were 2 links away from the download).

The copyright owner appears to have initially struggled with sending proper 512(c)(3) notices, but it got there (or close enough) eventually. The complaint acknowledges that Microsoft disabled the links after receiving some type of notice. As a result, I'm not sure how Microsoft could be liable if they expeditiously removed the links after receiving the copyright owner's notices. Google apparently has not taken down the links (because I can still find them) after seventeen increasingly exasperated requests from the copyright owner, but Google's delayed response/non-response could be due to the copyright owner's imprecision about whether Google was actually linking directly to infringing RapidShare files or only to websites that had allegedly illegal links on them.

As for RapidShare, I didn't see a registration of agent for 512 service of notice, so they may not be claiming 512(c) protection. Then again, the complaint says they are a German/Swiss operation, so they may be impossible to serve and sue in the US, and RapidShare may not have felt any need to satisfy a US law formality.

There have been other lawsuits against websites for linking to infringing content, but plaintiffs usually try to avoid suing power players like Google and Microsoft--both well-funded defendants who aren't likely to roll over on this issue. One of the major exceptions is the Perfect 10 v. Amazon and Google lawsuit, which also involved Google's links to infringing files (in that case, infringing copies of pornographic photos). That lawsuit led to an important but confusing Ninth Circuit ruling from 2007, which left open Google's secondary liability for its links as well as Google's eligibility for a 512 safe harbor for those links. Given the ambiguities of that opinion, the plaintiff's action here isn't clearly wrong as a doctrine matter. However, in my opinion, it is nevertheless ill-advised and unlikely to succeed.

Posted by Eric at 03:47 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Search Engines | TrackBack

December 04, 2009

Ninth Circuit Rebuffs Another CAN-SPAM Plaintiff -- Asis Internet Services v. Azoogle.com, Inc.

[Post by Venkat]

The Ninth Circuit recently rejected [pdf] two appeals brought by CAN-SPAM plaintiff Asis Internet Services. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Azoogle and awarded costs. See Eric's earlier blog post on that ruling. Asis has brought numerous lawsuits against different defendants. While this ruling won't necessarily be used preclusively against Asis it will definitely be cited by the defendants in those cases.

Citing Gordon v. Virtumundo, the court finds that:

the mere costs of carrying SPAM emails over Plaintiff's facilities does not constitute a harm as required by the statute. While Plaintiff argues that employee time was spent on spam-related issues, Plaintiff concedes that it has no records detailing employee time. Plaintiff also spent money on email filtering, though the cost of email filtering did not increase due to the emails at issue. Such ordinary filtering costs do not constitute a harm. [cite omitted] Thus, Plaintiff has not suffered a harm within the meaning of the statute and lacks standing.

The entire memo opinion is about two pages, and the court spends a sentence noting that Asis is not entitled to relief under the California statute (17529.5) because Azoogle "neither sent nor procured the emails at issue, and therefore did not 'advertise' within the meaning of the statute."

The big take away is that courts seem to be able to sniff out people who they view as pursuing litigation for the wrong reasons. It's unlikely that Asis was truly damaged to the extent of even a fraction of fees and resources it spent on this case.

Plaintiffs who aren't large ISPs or social networking websites haven't found a very sympathetic audience, particularly at the appellate level. We're probably left with a regime where only larger ISPs, social networking websites, and state actors are able to effectively bring anti-spam lawsuits. The scope of preemption of California's anti-spam statute is still unclear (Kleffman v. Vonage was certified to the California Supreme Court) so this is one possible option for plaintiffs, but I can't imagine they'll be spending much energy on this.

Posted by Venkat at 07:31 AM | Derivative Liability , Marketing , Spam

December 02, 2009

Case Western “Signifiers in Cyberspace” Conference Recap

By Eric Goldman

In mid-November, I attended a conference at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland, Ohio entitled “Signifiers in Cyberspace: Domain Names & Online Trademarks.” My notes:

David Fewer spoke about Canada’s WHOIS policy. The old Canadian registry policy published registrant information without restriction. Then, the registry proposed a new policy not to publish personal information in the WHOIS database for individual registrants and for organizations that can show harm from publication. To reveal registrant information in those situations, a warrant would be required. That policy got amended to allow warrantless access for cybercrime enforcement, registered IP infringement and ID theft. Fewer argued that the amended policy violates Canadian privacy laws (PIPEDA) because consumers are not given adequate disclosures, the exclusions from the privacy policy are arbitrary, and consumers aren’t given the required option not to participate.

Corynne McSherry of EFF discussed how TM owners are bypassing direct challenges against gripers and instead putting pressure on domain name registrars. She focused on the Yes Man spoof website of the New York Times, which included a parody ad of the De Beers diamond manufacturer. Humorless De Beers sought relief from Joker.com, the parodist’s registrar. EFF has responded to De Beers that the parody is legitimate because it has no commercial aspect, it’s nominative use, and the First Amendment applies. The EFF is also encouraging Joker.com to ignore De Beers because it (as the registrar) can’t be liable for the registered domain name. So why is Joker.com even entertaining De Beers’ complaint? Corynne notes the registrar’s revenue from any single domain name registration is less than legal cost of investigating and responding. Corynne discussed how parodists and gripers can minimize their legal risk (I blogged on these recommendations in May).

I remain very interested in situations where domain name registrars apply their own takedown policies to their customers. For example, I’ve previously mentioned GoDaddy’s “itchy trigger finger” when it comes to intervening with its registrants. I suspect there is significant heterogeneity among registrars’ interventionist tendencies. I think this is an area worth exploring. If you have other examples of domain name registrar intervention in its customers' content, please share them.

Stacey Dogan spoke about the aftermath of the Rescuecom ruling. Stacey is disappointed that courts aren't adopting her arguments to use the “trademark use in commerce” doctrine to insulate intermediaries (she calls it her “biggest failure in life”). She described three post-Rescuecom uncertainties: (1) what acts by intermediaries constitute TM infringement? (2) on what doctrinal basis? (direct v. contributory), and (3) what remedies do the intermediaries face?

Stacey thinks courts need to be more precise about the nexus between defendant behavior and TM owner harm. This should lead to better distinctions between direct and contributory infringement.

She offered a taxonomy of claims against intermediaries:

* General confusion = when the intermediary creates confusion through the blurring of ads and editorial content. Stacey thinks these aren’t TM issues. But if commingling is the problem, then the remedy should be an injunction requiring the intermediary to label the ads.

* Strict liability = when the search engine is automatically on the hook for its involvement with the ads. Stacey says courts should reject this approach due to the search engines' lack of proximate causation for consumer confusion. If a search engine faces any liability, it should be solely on the basis of contributory infringement (with its higher scienter bar).

* Failure to act = when the search engine fails to respond to TM owner’s takedown notice. She said we don’t see this in search engine cases [a point I disagree with given that the TM owner vs. search engine lawsuits all represent a failing of the search engines’ voluntary TM policies]; instead, she was thinking of the Tiffany case. Stacey thinks the failure of act prong is where the legal action should be. She wants courts to map out appropriate scienter levels. General knowledge of infringement isn’t enough, and courts should let defendants make reasonable judgments about whether the advertiser will qualify for any trademark defenses. If the advertiser is obviously infringing, and intermediary gets notice and fails to act, she thinks contributory liability could be appropriate.

Graeme Dinwoodie believes the ECJ will not follow the Advocate General’s opinion in the Google case. He explored two parallels between the AG’s opinion and Rescuecom: Both get away from trademark use of commerce, and both consider underlying policy values. Graeme thinks search engine defendants should move away from disputing the lack of harm to the trademark owner; instead, he thinks they will get more traction by showing the countervailing benefits of their advertising. For example, he thinks they should be showing how keyword advertising can facilitate investment and innovation.

Jeffrey Samuels shared his perspectives as a panelist in 200 UDRP proceedings. Since the UDRP’s implementation, there have been about 25,000 UDRP decisions. 40% are US registrations. 75% involve .com. 75% are defaults.

The UDRP isn’t designed to solve all domain name disputes. He gave an example of a domain name registration containing a celebrity child’s name. The UDRP isn't helpful because a 2 week old kid doesn’t have protectable trademark rights.

“The UDRP is hardly a model of clarity.” All cases are fact-dependent. If a UDRP proceeding has unusual facts, he recommends requesting a 3 member panel--these proceedings get more carefully evaluated opinions and minimize the effects of any one panelist’s idiosyncratic views.

Some issues that regularly arise in UDRP proceedings:

* What the TM owner has to do to establish its rights. The majority view is that a registration anywhere in the world suffices. Common law rights generally require presenting sufficient evidence validating the rights.
* There remains a split of authority on “sucks” sites.
* In the early days, panelists used to run through the multi-factor likelihood of confusion factors. That’s rarely done today. Now, most panelists just make sight and sound comparison.

Karl Auerbach discussed two interrelated issues: (1) ICANN lacks any political authority for its “Internet governance” role, and (2) technology does not require that ICANN monopolize DNS root services. He argues that we would benefit from competition among DNS root services. His argument reminds me a bit of the net neutrality debate. We can hypothesize many possible net neutrality problems, but most of them go away with vigorous competition. Similarly, ICANN’s often-ridiculous shenanigans would be less vexing in the face of bona fide competition for DNS root services.

Dan Hunter spoke about a new paper he’s writing with Mark McKenna. Their target is the fundamental trademark principle that trademark law protects against consumer confusion. They think consumer confusion is an imperfect proxy for our normative goal of protecting consumers. Some confusion is endemic in a complex society; and some methods of communication, like humor, require confusion to work. Therefore, they want to move away from trying to block consumer confusion and instead refocus trademark law on reducing errors in consumer decision-making. This seems like a fruitful endeavor, but they are also taking a swipe against the consumer search cost justification for trademark law, a move I didn't follow.

Bill McGeveran recapped his recent work on social networking sites and gave a preview of his next article. His target is fake online profiles such as the Tony La Russa fake Twitter account. He expects to see more pressure to create IP rights in personal identities.

I spoke about trademarks and behavioral targeting, and in particular the competition among marketers for consumer preference information. For example, I believe the anti-deep packet inspection pushback wasn’t based solely on privacy concerns. Instead, destination websites fear that an IAP will disintermediate them and use its prime access to consumer preference information to steer customers to competitors. (See this blog post for more on that point). My (very brief) slides.

Posted by Eric at 07:16 AM | Derivative Liability , Domain Names , Internet History , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

November 30, 2009

MySpace Quietly Won Goofy 230 Ruling in September--Riggs v. MySpace

By Eric Goldman

Riggs v. MySpace, Inc., 2:09-cv-03073-GHK-CT (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2009)

This case has received some modest attention throughout its history (including a quick mention here when the court upheld MySpace's user agreement), but the district court's dismissal of the case appears to have been completely overlooked.

Riggs created a MySpace profile that she used to authenticate celebrities' MySpace pages to distinguish them from the many fake celebrity profiles on MySpace. Her most substantive gripe is that MySpace deleted Riggs’ profile twice, and she claims MySpace was negligent to do so. There are several reasons why MySpace should not be liable for deleting her profile, including most obviously the many self-serving provisions in MySpace's user agreement (which the court mentions as an alternative basis of its dismissal). However, 47 USC 230(c)(1) does not appear to help MySpace because it only immunizes MySpace from liability based on third party content. Nevertheless, the district court rules against Riggs on 230(c)(1) grounds, saying:

Given that both claims for negligence are based on the deletion of Plaintiff’s profiles, a decision by MySpace to effectively “remove content” created by Plaintiff from its website, MySpace’s actions are immune from liability under Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA.

After reading this sentence a couple of times, it appears that the court is treating Riggs' own content as the content that Riggs wanted to hold MySpace liable for—technically, the "information provided by another information content provider." I believe that treating a plaintiff's content as "information provided by another information content provider" is a novel reading of 230(c)(1). I also don’t think it’s the logical reading of 230(c)(1)’s grammar, especially the reference to “another.”

The court’s decision is even more puzzling because 230(c)(2), which immunizes a service provider for filtering content it subjectively deems "objectionable," seems to squarely cover MySpace’s deletion of Riggs’ account. Could the court have intended to rule for MySpace on 230(c)(2) grounds, not 230(c)(1) grounds, and just got confused? Or perhaps the court collapsed the two provisions together, which my research assistant and I found occurred with surprising regularity in our comprehensive survey of 230(c)(2) cases. So while I think the 230(c)(1) dismissal was goofy, I would support the same outcome on 230(c)(2) grounds.

Riggs also complained that MySpace should have taken more efforts to police against fake celebrity profiles. The court rejected this claim on 230(c)(1) as well (appropriately used this time).

The remainder of Riggs' arguments didn't fare any better, and the court dismissed the entire complaint without leave to amend. Riggs has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit. It will be interesting to see what they do. Given the Ninth Circuit's apparent loathing of 230(c)(1) and the district court's goofy statutory reading, there is a non-trivial risk that the Ninth Circuit will do something crazy here.

Posted by Eric at 12:57 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 24, 2009

Teeth Whitening System Brings "Sue the World" Lawsuit Against Ad Agency, Competitor and Search Engines--Dazzlesmile v. Azoogle

By Eric Goldman

Dazzlesmile, LLC v. Epic Advertising, Inc., 2:09-cv-01043-PMW (D. Utah complaint filed Nov. 23, 2009)

Dazzlesmile sells a teeth whitening system. Presumably these systems generate fat profits, because Dazzlesmile has brought an expensive "sue-the-world" lawsuit against its ad agency, its competitor and the search engines.

Azoogle/Epic

The lawsuit against Azoogle/Epic is partially based on a miscalibrated cost-per-acquisition (CPA) deal. Azoogle sold Dazzlesmile on a CPA deal which pays Azoogle $43 for making a $4 sale with negative-option continuing revenue streams, i.e., the consumer has to cancel after the free trial period or he/she automatically gets shipped and charged for more whitening stuff. If the ongoing revenue stream is great enough, it can make sense to pay out big upfront commissions to get the sale. However, this payment structure creates lots of mischief possibilities.

In this case, Dazzlesmile alleges that its competitor engaged in "CPA fraud" by placing thousands of orders, coincidentally generating over $100k of commissions to Azoogle in one week. Dazzlesmile also complains that its products were being promoted by spam, fake blogs and other problematic ads in contravention to Azoogle's promises. Finally, Dazzlesmile complains that a rogue affiliate packaged two different systems into the same ad, causing consumers to order both products and then renege when they realized Dazzlesmile's terms.

The odd thing about this complaint is that Dazzlesmile tries to portray itself as the white-knight advertiser that wants to do right by consumers, while the evil Azoogle kept tempting Dazzlesmile to cut corners and take undeserved money from consumers. I understand the value of this positioning, but I find it a little hard to believe. You kind of know what to expect when you're dealing with Azoogle, and I'd be surprised if Dazzlesmile is a fully innocent naïf.

Competitor Lawsuits

Dazzlesmile also claims that its competitor slapped counterfeit "Dazzlesmile" labels on a different teeth whitening system. It further claims that Azoogle and the competitor conspired to use Dazzlesmile's advertising copy in Azoogle's network to direct teeth whitening customers to the competitor. It also claims these defendants used the Dazzlesmile trademark in a host of inappropriate ways, including in spam, as keyword ad triggers, in domain names, and in astroturfed content. Dazzlesmile claims it has received 10,000 misdirected customer support inquiries from duped customers.

Lawsuits Against the Search Engines

Dazzlesmile drags Google, Yahoo and Microsoft into the lawsuit for selling keyword advertisements despite Dazzlesmile's cease & desist letter to stop doing so. Oddly, the complaint pleads the search engine's liability as "vicarious liability," which should be DOA. Vicarious trademark infringement requires an agency relationship between the search engines and the advertisers, which the complaint doesn't (and can't) plead. If it's a non-IP form of vicarious liability, then it's preempted by 47 USC 230. So I predict Dazzlesmile will have to amend its complaint against the search engines to allege some other legal theory, or the search engines will exit this particular matter quickly.

Interestingly, the complaint alleges ripoffs of both its copyrightable ad copy and its trade secret protectable marketing plans, but the complaint does not allege either copyright infringement or trade secret misappropriation.

Conclusion

Dazzlesmile's complaint, if completely accurate, tells a story filled with legal wrongs, but I'm not sure I found it all that convincing. I will have to see the defendants' responses before I can begin to form any conclusions about its overall merit.

It does point out one troublesome spot as a good practice pointer. I know a lot of advertisers think they prefer CPA pricing over CPC or CPM pricing because they are more clearly paying for results, but this case provides a good illustration that a miscalibrated CPA price is no better at reducing unwanted spending than a miscalibrated CPC or CPM. At minimum, I’m surprised that Dazzlesmile apparently didn't include some provision in the CPA formula allowing it to avoid payment for chargebacks or immediately returned products. If you're an advertiser doing CPA deals, make sure you have robust enough exclusions to the CPA obligations so that you are truly paying for bona fide results.

AdWords Lawsuit Roster

The updated roster of pending AdWords cases:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google and the companion Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google 1.0 (voluntarily dismissed), succeeded by Jurin v. Google 2.0
* Rosetta Stone v. Google
* Flowbee v. Google
* Parts Geek v. US Auto Parts
* Dazzlesmile v. Epic

Posted by Eric at 06:05 PM | Derivative Liability , Marketing , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

November 10, 2009

A New Way to Bypass 47 USC 230? Default Injunctions and FRCP 65

By Eric Goldman

I recently got the following email from David Gingras, the relatively new General Counsel of the Ripoff Report (reposted with his permission):
________

"As you know, Ripoff Report has defended, and won, a lot of CDA cases in the past few years. Although we still get a new case every so often, plaintiffs and their lawyers seem to have gotten the message that lawsuits against us aren’t likely to prevail. Good news, I suppose.

Despite this, a new strategy is arising....In a nutshell, what seems to be happening is that defamation plaintiffs are no longer naming Ripoff Report as a party (which is good). Instead, they are going after the original author (also good, assuming the claim is legitimate).

However, something odd is happening – these cases almost always result in a default. Without any defendant there to argue otherwise, the courts seem willing to grant virtually any relief requested by the plaintiff; i.e. an injunction requiring the removal of the offending material. Once that happens, the plaintiff will approach Ripoff Report with their default injunction and demand that we remove whatever postings they ask us to, even when we were not a party to the case and even if the truth of the statements has never been litigated. Their argument tends to be that under FRCP 65, injunctions can be enforced against non-parties as long as they are acting in “active concert” with a party, so they simply claim we are acting in concert with the author, whatever that means.

In this scenario, it’s almost as if 47 USC s. 230 doesn’t exist at all. In other words, if you are a plaintiff seeking to remove a negative online posting, you’re not going to succeed with any claims against the site. However, that need not stop you – all you have to do is file a lawsuit against someone, claim they were the author, make sure they default, and then ask the court for an injunction (even if it affects a non-party) and voila! You have just accomplished your goals without even really trying!....

[I]t seems to me that if courts allow this type of thing to happen, then the CDA is essentially meaningless – by “litigating” the merits of the case against a non-existent defendant and then approaching Ripoff Report after-the-fact, a plaintiff can obtain relief that they would never be able to get in a legitimate adversarial proceeding, and we’re stuck trying to get the judge to put the genie back into the bottle.

Can plaintiffs use this tactic to get damages from a website/host? Well, not initially, but once you have an injunction requiring the removal of material from the site, the door is open to asking for contempt sanctions if the website doesn’t comply, and that could allow essentially unlimited damages – even when the original claims were time-barred (note: the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which is waived if the defendant defaults), or even if the original postings were true.

...I am very concerned that this is the start of a new trend. Using a baseball analogy, it’s almost like the plaintiff takes the field alone, plays the game, declares itself the winner, and then finally tells the other team about the game. Should the umpires allow this? No, of course not, but what happens when they do?"
________

David's email raises a fascinating doctrinal question of the interaction between FRCP 65(d) and 47 USC 230, but I wonder how often these issues come up in the field. Ripoff Report is relatively unique among consumer review sites (and UGC sites generally) because it vows never to remove user postings, even if a user asks Ripoff Report to remove the post. In contrast, most UGC sites would speedily comply with a default injunction, no questions asked—especially if the user is not around to protest the takedown. Or the user folds in the face of a demand from a putative plaintiff and deletes the content him/herself, at which point the service provider doesn't even know there was a problem.

Nevertheless, I think David may be witnessing a new and cutting edge way to effectuate illegitimate content takedowns. Many websites that initially stand up for their users, emboldened by the 230 shield, will instantly crumble when presented with a default injunction. For the price of a complaint and a defendant’s default (which can be engineered by targeting a phantom author), plaintiffs obtain an effective cudgel to excise unwanted content throughout the web. Because this could become a cost-effective way of suppressing socially valuable critical content, I encourage UGC sites to be circumspect about honoring default injunctions against user content.

If a UGC site chooses to contest a default injunction, 47 USC 230 should trump FRCP 65. FRCP 65(d) applies to non-litigants in "active concert or participation" with the defendant. Typically, the only relationship between the content producer/defendant and a UGC website is that the website is republishing the defendant’s content. 230 preempts any effort to treat a website as the publisher of third party content, and I think that’s exactly what FRCP 65(d) does.

Now, if a court has properly adjudicated some content as tortious or illegal, it would be socially desirable for the website to remove the content. This is why a court orders the injunction in the first place. However, David’s example assumes an incomplete adjudication because of the default. So if a website contests a default injunction against user-supplied content, a court should do a more thorough evaluation of the plaintiff’s merits. If the court concludes—following a properly contested proceeding—that the injunction was in fact appropriate, only then should the publisher be compelled to remove the content.

Unfortunately, most judges will expect websites to honor a default injunction without question, and therefore they will be reluctant to reconsider the injunction’s merits. Apropos of that, David sent me a report of a hearing from last week involving Ripoff Report's effort to contest a FRCP 65 default injunction. He says that the "judge was apparently ‘incredulous’ at our position – [wondering] why can’t we just agree to take the postings down?" Nevertheless, the judge gave Ripoff Report a chance to brief the matter. I’ll be interested to see if Ripoff Report can make any headway with the skeptical judge. Whatever you think about Ripoff Report generally, I applaud their efforts to defend their users’ words and ensure judicial accuracy rather than rolling over like most UGC sites would.

Posted by Eric at 11:50 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 06, 2009

Google AdWords Litigation Keeps Rolling In--Parts Geek v. US Auto Parts

By Eric Goldman

Parts Geek LLC v. US Auto Parts Network Inc.,3:2009cv05578 (D.N.J. complaint filed Nov. 2, 2009) [warning: 3MB PDF]. The Justia page.

In my world, we have an honor code among geeks--thou shalt not harm other geeks. As you can imagine, then, I was a little sad to see geek-on-geek litigation like this one, where auto parts geeks are suing computer geeks. Can't we geeks all get along?

Parts Geek is an online retailer of auto parts. US Auto Parts Network is a competitor who has bought keyword ads triggered by Parts Geek's trademarks. (However, when I searched this morning for Parts Geek, I didn't see any US Auto Parts' ads). In response, Parts Geek is suing its competitor as well as Google for the keyword advertising.

With respect to Google's involvement, the complaint doesn't break any new ground. I'm pretty sure it's largely a rip of another complaint, but I can't remember which one(s). According to my count, this lawsuit brings Google back up to 9 AdWords lawsuits.

In contrast, there are a couple of interesting facets of the claims against US Auto Parts. First, Parts Geek alleges (para. 42) that US Auto Parts set up a blog entitled "Auto Parts Geek" to divert traffic. Can you imagine a more perfect descriptive fair use situation? I think this will become my new favorite example.

Second, Parts Geek makes a Computer Fraud & Abuse Act claim because US Auto Parts allegedly crawled Parts Geek's site to extract "proprietary data and pricing." The CFAA claim seemed like an afterthought tacked onto allegations that focused almost exclusively on the trademark issues, and it wasn't as fleshed out or robust as we normally see in anti-crawling lawsuits (i.e., no claims for breach of contract, trespass to chattels, copyright infringement or violations of a state computer crimes law). Nevertheless, I'm always interested in anti-crawling lawsuits, especially ones with anti-competitive angles like efforts to keep competitor A from learning competitor B's prices. Further, Parts Geek claims that US Auto Parts' access to its website was delimited by a "terms of use" which, from my limited review of the Parts Geek site, appears to be at best a very obscure "browsewrap." The CFAA is more tolerant of obscure disclosures than contract law is, and this CFAA claim is hardly unusual, but I'm nonetheless troubled by the implications of treating obscure browsewraps as effective anti-crawling mechanisms.

The roster of pending AdWords cases:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google and the companion Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google 1.0 (voluntarily dismissed), succeeded by Jurin v. Google 2.0
* Rosetta Stone v. Google
* Flowbee v. Google
* Parts Geek v. US Auto Parts

Posted by Eric at 07:17 AM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

November 03, 2009

Law Professor Sues Over 'Above the Law' Blog Posts--Jones v. Minkin

By Eric Goldman

Jones v. Minkin, 1:09-cv-23256-MGC (S.D. Fla. complaint filed Oct. 27, 2009). The Above the Law blog post on the lawsuit with links to the posts in question.

Given its history of provocative and occasionally aggressive blog posts, it's actually a little surprising that popular law blog Above the Law has not been sued before. A blogger's life is inherently filled with peril. We bet our houses with every blog post, and eventually the law of large numbers starts working against us. The risks are even greater for bloggers covering legal topics. By definition, we routinely cover people who are prepared to mix it up in court. As a result, it's almost inevitable that blawgers who keep at it long enough will get sued eventually.

The plaintiff in this case is University of Miami law professor D. Marvin Jones, who in 2007 was improperly detained by police for possibly racist reasons. This prompted a series of blog posts on Above the Law that included an unflattering cartoon and unfavorable characterizations. Jones now claims that the blog posts put him in a false light, invaded his privacy and constituted copyright infringement because the blog posts used the photo from his university profile page. Although the complaint uses the word "defamation" earlier in the pleading, no defamation claim was alleged. For these violations, Jones asks for tens of millions of dollars to right the alleged wrongs.

I'm skeptical about all three claims, but the copyright claim is almost unquestionably bogus. It's not properly pleaded; there's no allegation of a copyright registration. More importantly, I would be shocked if Jones owned the copyrights in the photo on his faculty page. Usually faculty photos are taken by a university photographer or a third party vendor; in either case, the photo subject normally does not obtain ownership or an exclusive license to the copyright. Perhaps Jones has managed his IP affairs better than 99+% of professors. If not, 17 USC 505, the copyright fee-shifting provision, seems like it sets up Jones to potentially write a check to the defendants. (Fair use also seems strongly possible, but we don't need to get there if the plaintiff can't establish a prima facie case of infringement).

With respect to the alleged privacy violations, there is the obvious problem that police incident reports should be public documents. However, I’m also interested Jones' faculty bio does much to trumpet his high public profile. He self-describes himself as a "public intellectual" (a fairly rare self-characterization among academics) and says he has "appeared as an expert on national and local television" and "is a sought after speaker at many universities." These self-reported assessments about his public visibility don't obviate his privacy rights, but they do suggest that a police detention--especially one with racial overtones, exactly the type of thing he discusses in these public spaces—and the associated report either don't qualify as a "private fact" or are sufficiently newsworthy to trump his privacy interests.

Ben Sheffner's post on this case makes good points about the false light claim. He says it's DOA because (1) Florida doesn't recognize the cause of action, and (2) to the extent it's based on the cartoon, the cartoon was provided by a third party and therefore 47 USC 230 preempts the claim.

This lawsuit reminded me a little of the long-running Steinbuch v. Cutler lawsuit, which also involved a law professor/plaintiff Robert Steinbuch (now at UALR) claiming privacy violations against a blogger. That legal battle hasn't turned out so well for Steinbuch. Putting aside a number of substantive losses along the way, the lawsuit has been going nearly 5 years with no clear end in sight. Some of the delay was caused by Cutler's bankruptcy, but much more of it was due to the inherent weakness of judicial proceedings as a redress for unwanted speech. And in the end, I don't think the lawsuit has done much to enhance Steinbuch's reputation as a law professor or otherwise.

Two other minor points about the lawsuit. First, the complaint repeatedly criticizes Above the Law for referring to Jones as "D. Marvin Jones" rather than some other variation of his name, alleging that the usage was designed to ensnare searchers looking for his book. Perhaps that was the intent (doubtful, but possible), but I have chosen to refer to Jones by the name he uses on his faculty profile...which is "D. Marvin Jones." Second, it was jarring to see "Barack Obama" misspelled in a complaint (especially given the plaintiff's expertise) as "Barrack Obama."

Unfortunately for Above the Law, Florida does not have a robust anti-SLAPP statute. Nevertheless, given its facial lack of merit and the possibility that Jones will want to minimize the size of the check he has to write the defendants for his ill-conceived copyright claim, I hope this lawsuit will reach a quicker resolution than the Steinbuch v. Cutler saga.

FWIW, there is an attractive free conference tomorrow afternoon in San Francisco that, quite topically, will address the unique challenges of online reporting of legal cases. (The official page is down, but this page has all the relevant details). Hope to see you there.

UPDATE: Jones has voluntarily dismissed the case within days of bringing it.

Posted by Eric at 01:57 PM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Publicity/Privacy Rights | TrackBack

November 02, 2009

October 2009 Quick Links

By Eric Goldman

Just a reminder that I am posting most of these types of links exclusively to my Twitter feed.

* Tricome v. eBay, Inc., 2009 WL 3365873 (E.D.Pa. Oct 19, 2009). Court upholds eBay user agreement's venue selection clause. Evan Brown covers the case.

* The AutoAdmit case is over. Above the Law and the Yale newspaper.

* Google doesn't want to hear your complaints about your reputation management.

* Moneygram settles with the FTC (to the tune of $18M) that its money wiring service was used to perpetrate fraud.

* The FTC scores a rare COPPA settlement, this time with Iconix for $250,000.

* John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96520 (SDNY Oct. 19, 2009). Another federal court holds that the purchase of foreign-manufactured textbooks and resale in the US via the Internet is blocked by the importation right and not excused by the First Sale doctrine. My coverage of the analogous Pearson v. Liu ruling.

* Utah's "Don't Spam the Kids" registry survived a constitutional challenge. That doesn't make it good policy!

* Saadi v. Maroun. Blogger hit with $90k judgment for defamation. MLRC coverage. My initial blog post on the case.

* Erik Estavillo, the gamer who sued for being kicked off the PlayStation Network, is appealing his district court loss to the Ninth Circuit. I guess he wants to lock in the adverse ruling as the binding law of the Western United States. My blog post on the district court ruling.

* Susan Gindin, When are a Posted Privacy Policy and 'Enforceable' Terms of Use Not Enough? The Many Lessons Learned and Questions Raised by the FTC’s Action Against Sears.

* Rep. Paul Kanjorski wants to end 47 USC 230 with respect to bogus stock investing info? This legislation needs careful monitoring due to its potential perniciousness.

* Venkat has his own version of Quick Links on his site.

Posted by Eric at 05:08 PM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Licensing/Contracts , Privacy/Security , Spam | TrackBack

October 23, 2009

Google AdWords Litigation Updates--Google Adds One Lawsuit and Ends Another

By Eric Goldman

It's been a little quiet on the Google AdWords trademark litigation front in the past couple of months, so it's timely to check in on the situation.

Jurin v. Google, Inc., 2:09-at-01695 (E.D. Cal. complaint filed Oct. 22, 2009)

You may recall Daniel Jurin, who claims ownership in the trademark "styrotrim" (a type of building exterior covering). In June, he sued Google for trademark infringement and related claims as part of the spate of lawsuits filed after Google changed its trademark policies in May. Then, less than 2 months later, he voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after having parting ways with his attorneys. I figured losing his attorney would spell the end of Jurin's quest, but no! Breaking a two month dry spell in new Google AdWords lawsuits (the last being Flowbee in mid-August), Jurin has found a new attorney, Paul Bartleson, and has decided to tangle with the tiger once again. Welcome back to the party!

It appears that Jurin had to cast a pretty wide net to find a substitute attorney. Paul's website says for the past 19 years he "has focused almost exclusively on Bankruptcy matters," and his LinkedIn page says he is "also an entrepreneur and business development consultant in a business that teachers leadership, values and relationship skills, while capitalizing on the wealth building potential of the internet." Huh? Not sure what that means, but could this lawsuit be an example of their "wealth building" prowess???

The complaint itself doesn't break any new ground. It's fairly internally redundant, and the narrative appears to conflate paid ads with organic listings fairly freely (while ironically complaining that Google confuses ads and organic results).

Soaring Helmet Corp. v. Bill Me Inc., 2:2009cv00789 (W.D. Wash. voluntarily dismissed Oct. 15, 2009)

In an unpublicized move, Soaring Helmet voluntarily dismissed Google from its trademark lawsuit against Bill Me last week. Even with Google out of the picture, the trademark owner v. advertiser lawsuit appears to be going strong. My initial blog post on that lawsuit.

Rosetta Stone v. Google

A month ago, Rosetta Stone's lawsuit largely survived Google's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In a non-substantive opinion, the court tossed out the false endorsement and conspiracy claims but left the remainder intact.

Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits

In mid-September, Google voluntarily dismissed its declaratory judgment action trying to wrest the John Beck v. Google lawsuit venue out of Texas. This dismissal does not appear to have affected the original John Beck v. Google case, nor did it succeed in affecting venue.

The roster of pending AdWords cases:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google and the companion Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google 1.0 (voluntarily dismissed), succeeded by Jurin v. Google 2.0
* Rosetta Stone v. Google
* Flowbee v. Google

Posted by Eric at 09:54 AM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

October 22, 2009

Facebook Not Liable for Private User Groups Per 230--Finkel v. Facebook

By Eric Goldman

Finkel v. Facebook, Inc., 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 32248 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 15, 2009)

This is a really interesting legal dispute with an entirely predictable outcome for Facebook as a defendant. See my initial blog post on the matter. A half-dozen high school students participated in a private Facebook group that ridiculed one of their peers. This wasn't a nice thing to do, and the conversation exhibits the kind of mean-spirited puerile comments forged by the insecurities and social pressures of high school. Whether the underlying conversation is actually tortious remains unresolved, but I have my doubts.

Nevertheless, we knew all along that Facebook wasn't liable for its users' private group or their conversations per 47 USC 230. This wasn't even close to a colorable question. The plaintiff's lawyer mistakenly read the law differently and unwisely sued Facebook. To get around 230, he alleged that Facebook took an ownership interest in the private group's messages, which he argued should cost Facebook its 230 immunity. There are at least two problems with this theory, though. First, Facebook doesn't take anything close to ownership in private group messages; at most, I believe they take a limited non-exclusive license. Second, even if Facebook did take ownership of the group's contents, 230 applies to third party-created online content irrespective of the ultimate IP ownership of the content. Several cases support that proposition, including Blumenthal v. Drudge from 1998 and Schneider v. Amazon.com from 2001. Here, the court makes the point emphatically, saying "Ownership of 'content' plays no role in the Act's statutory scheme."

Given this very clear and plainly stated proposition, the trial court judge gives Facebook its deserved early exit from the case per 230, correctly labeling the plaintiff's argument "meritless." Fortunately for the plaintiff's counsel, the court decided not to grant sanctions to Facebook, saying that the argument wasn't "frivolous." Future plaintiffs with similarly misguided theories about 47 USC 230 may not be so lucky.

For more, see CMLP.

Posted by Eric at 09:36 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

October 21, 2009

Craigslist Isn't Liable for Erotic Services Ads--Dart v. Craigslist

By Eric Goldman

Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 09 C 1385 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009)

Yesterday, Judge John F. Grady of the Northern District of Illinois federal court dismissed Cook County Sheriff Dart's lawsuit against Craigslist for user-posted advertisements in Craigslist's erotic services/adult services category on 47 USC 230 grounds. This is hardly surprising, as I wrote in March that "this lawsuit is almost certainly preempted by 47 USC 230." However, it was nice to see such a clean and decisive opinion--and a little ironic, as our law enforcement officials, who are supposed to enforce the laws rather than bypass them, got schooled in the limits of their legal authority.

With respect to the 230 analysis, the court characterizes Sheriff Dart's claims as alleging that Craigslist negligently published the user-supplied ads. The court says that the Seventh Circuit implicitly said that 230 preempted such claims in the 2008 CLC v. Craigslist case. To get around this, Sheriff Dart tried a Roommates.com styled attack, arguing that Craigslist induced the users' advertisements by creating an erotic/adult services category and letting users do keyword searches. These arguments go nowhere (making this yet another case where Roommates.com is cited for the defense). An adult services category can legitimately contain postings for legal services, and the keyword search functionality was agnostic about the illegality of the search and therefore a "neutral tool" (whatever that meant from Roommates.com).

Two other interesting doctrinal notes from the opinion:

* In FN 6, the court reiterates that 230 preempts a civil action to enforce a federal criminal statute. See Doe v. Bates.

* the court rejects arguments that Craigslist "arranges" meetings for prostitution, "directs" people to prostitution or "provides" contact info for prostitutes because, in all three cases, the user-supplied ad (if anything) satisfies those verbs. Similarly, Craigslist's role in "facilitating," "assisting" or "aiding and abetting" these user activities is governed by 230. I believe this is consistent with my view that 230 should preempt any claim that one party "endorses" third party online content.

Given some ambiguous language floating in Seventh Circuit 230 jurisprudence from the CLC v. Craigslist case and the old Doe v. GTE case, it wouldn't surprise me if Sheriff Dart tried an appeal. However, this opinion was solidly reasoned and completely consistent with that jurisprudence, so I wouldn't expect a different result on appeal.

Posted by Eric at 01:13 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability , Marketing | TrackBack

October 19, 2009

DePaul Reputation Talk Slides

By Eric Goldman

Last week I presented on my long-running Economics of Reputational Information project once again--this time at a DePaul conference on cyberlaw. I titled the talk "A Tale of Two Reputation Systems" and approached it as a comparative study between job references and online product reviews. As always, I'd gratefully welcome your comments.

Posted by Eric at 10:07 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

October 17, 2009

Q3 2009 Quick Links, Part 3

By Eric Goldman

Copyright

* AP v. All Headline News settles. My initial blog post. The settlement order.

* The Turnitin case has settled. My blog post on the district court ruling.

* Corbis Corp. v. Starr, No. 3:07CV3741 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 2, 2009).. Company that retained web developer could be liable for copyright infringing photos included in the developed website. David Johnson's coverage.

* Creative Commons commissioned a study of what people think qualifies as “commercial” or “non-commercial” activity. While this is relevant to how CC drafts its various license flavors, these words also have significant import to many facets of the law, including copyright (such as the fair use test) and trademark (such as the definition of “use in commerce”). The executive summary:

Both creators and users generally consider uses that earn users money or involve online advertising to be commercial, while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly noncommercial. Similarly, uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial. Perceptions of the many use cases studied suggest that with the exception of uses that earn users money or involve advertising – at least until specific case scenarios are presented that disrupt those generalized views of commerciality – there is more uncertainty than clarity around whether specific uses of online content are commercial or noncommercial.

eBooks

* Advocates for the blind sue Arizona State University for distributing electronic textbooks via the Kindle.

* Rebecca on the relationship between the Kindle 1984 debacle and the Google Book Search settlement. See also this Slate article.

Search Engines

* Train2Game v. Google, [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB): UK opinion that Google isn't liable for its search results snippets.

* CEO Bartz said Yahoo was never a search company. What??? Danny Sullivan calls her out for her "revisionist history."

* Greg Linden: Google AdWords Now Personalized.

* ThirdVoice redux: Google launches SideWiki. Let the legal games begin! (See, e.g., this BusinessWeek article). I’d be more worked up if Google had a more successful track record with non-search offerings, especially user-generated content projects. Lively, anyone?

Marketing

* Some craziness in Maine, when the legislature tried to restrict marketing to kids. PUBLIC Law, Chapter 230 LD 1183, item 1, 124th Maine State Legislature. The Maine AG said she won't enforce it, and subsequently the law was given a timeout so the Maine legislature can rethink the error of its ways.

* eBay is changing to a per-click model for paying affiliates, where the per-click amount is reset daily based on actual value delivered by the affiliate.

* Ethical Quandary: Faxed attorney newsletter doesn’t violate TCPA.

Posted by Eric at 04:47 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Internet History , Marketing , Search Engines | TrackBack

October 15, 2009

Q3 2009 Quick Links, Part 2

By Eric Goldman

Trademark

* Venkat: Twitter makes the dictionary.

* Federal Circuit says Hotels.com is generic.

* Steve Madden sues eBay for trademark infringement. Marty's coverage. Justia page. I found the fifth cause of action, "trademark delusion," a surprisingly apt malapropism.

* Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashantiplc Limited. Yahoo is suing over Flicker.com.

* Lots of action involving Mary Kay.

- Mary Kay sued Yahoo for its shortcuts being triggered by the Mary Kay trademark. The Justia page.

- Mary Kay brought another lawsuit to shut down aftermarket resales.

- The Mary Kay v. Weber case has reached a conclusion. See my initial blog post on the case. In March, Mary Kay won a jury verdict against Weber. In August, the district court judge denied Weber post-trial relief. Mary Kay v. Weber, 2009 WL 2569070 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2009). On Sept. 29, the judge awarded Mary Kay $1.1M, computed as “the defendants' pre-tax net profit for the years 2005 through 2008.”

* I hate greeting card IP cases...especially when they involve Paris Hilton. See the Ninth Circuit opinion.

* Rebecca on a complicated trademark and false advertising case involving cell phone reflashing.

* Third Educ. Group, Inc. v. Phelps, 2009 WL 2029758 (E.D. Wis. July 10, 2009). An oblique nod to a co-blogging situation:

It is possible to have a situation in which a voluntary association develops out of a preexisting creation of an individual (take, for example, a blog created, named, and operated entirely by a single individual that then expands into a voluntary association as it includes more collaborative members but continues to utilize the original name). Under such circumstances, the founding individual might register the name of the voluntary association as a trademark solely in his own name and then license it to the voluntary association because he has used the trademark separate from the voluntary association. However, that did not occur here.

* CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 2009 WL 2705426 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2009): "Plaintiff argues for personal jurisdiction on the grounds that Defendant purchased two of Plaintiff's trademarks from internet search engines, so that those engines would display Defendant's advertisements when Plaintiff's word marks were searched….Defendant's uncontroverted affidavit avers that its Adwords were selected by the search engines and were purchased before Defendant knew Plaintiff was located in California.…Accordingly, even if Defendant intentionally infringed Plaintiff's marks, there is no showing that act was “expressly aimed at the forum state” or that it caused “harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.”"

* GMA Accessories, Inc. v. BOP, 2009 WL 2634771 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2009). A really interesting and confusing lawsuit that says (I think) that electronic usage of third party trademarks does not qualify as a use in commerce and may not constitute contributory trademark infringement, with obvious implications for the search engine keyword advertising cases:

Electric Wonderland's second alleged meritorious defense is that it did not use the CHARLOTTE or CHARLOTTE SOLNICKI marks....Electric Wonderland's President described its business as follows:

Electric Wonderland brokers and/or processes orders from wholesale purchasers for fulfillment by clients of Electric Wonderland. Electric Wonderland does not directly sell its clients [sic] products, does not fulfill orders, does not acquire or maintain any inventory for sale, and does not purchase products from its clients for resale. Electric Wonderland does receive commissions on sales it brokers....

According to the Flack Declaration, these were the services Electric Wonderland provided to Charlotte Solnicki. (Flack Decl. P 3.) "Electric Wonderland did not directly sell Charlotte Solnicki products, did not fulfill orders, did not acquire or maintain any inventory of such products for sale, and did not purchase such products from Charlotte Solnicki for resale." (Flack Decl. P 3.) If this were the extent of Electric Wonderland's role, a fact-finder could find that Electric Wonderland did not "use" the CHARLOTTE or CHARLOTTE SOLNICKI marks, because it did not place the marks on any goods. Likewise, a reasonable fact-finder could determine that Electric Wonderland never used the marks to sell or advertise any of the services Electric Wonderland rendered. Thus, Electric Wonderland would not be liable for direct trademark infringement.

...Electric Wonderland's president claims that "[a]t no time while Charlotte Solnicki was a client of Electric Wonderland was Electric Wonderland aware of GMA's 'Charlotte' products nor of any possibility that the Charlotte Solnicki products were potentially infringing any third party's trademark rights." (Flack Decl. P 5.) If true, a reasonable fact-finder could find that Electric Wonderland neither knew, nor had reason to know of the alleged infringement during the period in question.

In addition, the Second Circuit has not decided whether contributory infringement applies to entities like Electric Wonderland, which provide services instead of products....Thus, Electric Wonderland, as a matter of law, may have a complete defense to contributory infringement liability, a matter which this Court need not decide at this juncture.

* Dan Burk and Brett McDonnell, Trademarks and the Boundaries of the Firm. Interesting discussion (among other things) on how an entrepreneur's/employee's personal reputation and corporate reputation can be interlinked.

Domain Names

* The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defense win in the domain name case of Southern Grouts & Mortars v. 3M, 2009 WL 2182605 (11th Cir. July 23, 2009). See my initial blog post on the case.

* John Levine: What are TLDs Good For? Bringing to mind the famous Edwin Starr song (I think the answer is the same!).

* ICANN claims it has killed domain name tasting.

Posted by Eric at 09:53 AM | Derivative Liability , Domain Names , E-Commerce , Marketing , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

October 14, 2009

Q3 2009 Quick Links, Part 1

By Eric Goldman

My system of managing news items that don't warrant a full blog post but can't fit into a 140 character Twitter post has broken down. So, I'm belatedly catching up on my backlog of things that caught my attention in Q3 2009. This part focuses on online content issues:

Defamation

* Ava v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 1885099 (N.Y.A.D. July 2, 2009). A NY Post story quoting part of the plaintiff's MySpace page and characterizing it as a "fantasy" wasn't defamatory.

* Terrific post by Paul Levy on Ripoff Report, InfomercialScams.com, Video Professor and UGC sites that go bad

* A tweet about moldy apartment leads to a defamation lawsuit. MLRC and CMLP coverage.

* Cohen v. Google, Inc., 2009 WL 2883410 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 17, 2009). Calling a woman a “skank,” in the context of a blog with photos and other critical material, was prima facie defamation sufficient to support a pre-action disclosure of the anonymous blogger’s identity.

* Cash4Gold sued Consumerist but then dropped it as a defendant.

* You may recall my earlier blog post on the Higher Balance lawsuit, a nice 230 defense win. Subsequently, the Higher Balance defendants were awarded over $50k in attorneys fees.

* Crookes v. Newton, 2009 BCCA 392 (Sept. 15, 2009). A British Columbia appellate court says that linking to defamatory content isn’t defamation.

* Joe Mullin: "Troll Tracker" blogger defamation lawsuit settles

Cyberbullying

* Larry Magid on the definitions of cyberbullying

* US v Voneida: 3d Circuit says student's MySpace postings were "true threats" that supported 19 month sentence

* Smoking Gun: Placing a bogus Craigslist ad is being prosecuted as felony cyberbullying.

* News.com: A Missouri prosecution under Missouri's new Megan Maier anti-cyberbullying aw.

Blogs and Social Networking Sites

* A New Jersey court says a blogger isn't entitled to the reporter shield.

* Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, No. 06-5754 (D.N.J. June 16, 2009). Jury verdict against a restaurant owner that forced employees to allow it to view their private MySpace group.

* HB1314: Illinois bans sex offenders from using social networking sites. Evan Brown explores the statute's constitutionality.

* Facebook Beacon is dead…and yet another privacy organization springs up in its wake. News.com, settlement agreement and motion for settlement.

* Public Citizen v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, 2009 WL 2390866 (E.D. La. Aug. 3, 2009). A federal court struck down Louisiana’s state bar rules restricting lawyer advertising via the Internet.

Posted by Eric at 10:15 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability , Privacy/Security | TrackBack

October 12, 2009

A Fuller Explanation of Why the FTC Endorsement/Testimonial Guidelines Violate 47 USC 230

By Eric Goldman

Last week’s release of the FTC's new Endorsement and Testimonial Guidelines has generated a significant amount of angst online. The resulting commentary has been strongly and almost uniformly negative. Frankly, none of the sources I read have praised the guidelines, but perhaps I'm locked in an echo chamber. Declan has a useful recap/linkwrap.

In this environment of heightened negativity, people have been searching for angles to prove the FTC can't do what it's doing. This has led folks to my post from last week arguing that certain facets of the guidelines violate 47 USC 230.

Despite the general popularity of the post, privately it has attracted some skepticism. Several smart law professors/lawyers disagreed with my post in Facebook profile page comments, and I've gotten some private emails to the same effect. What’s caught my attention is that these disagreements are coming from folks who normally agree with my expansive 230 interpretations. This clearly indicated to me that 230’s application to the FTC’s scenario was not nearly as self-evident as I thought it was.

As a result, in this post, I'm going to describe my analysis in more detail than my previous post. I'm not sure I'll convince the doubters, but they deserve more detail than I initially provided.

The FTC's Example

There are many facets to the new guidelines, but I am focusing solely on Example #5 to §255.1, which reads:

Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger’s endorsement. [my emphasis]

The blogger also is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. [See § 255.5.]

In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered.

The FTC doesn't define what qualifies as a "blog advertising service," but it's fairly clear the FTC is targeting PayPerPost/Izea and its competition. So the example could be restated as:

* advertiser contracts with PayPerPost to get bloggers to write about its product
* PayPerPost makes a match with a blogger. There is no employment or agency relationship between the advertiser or the blogger; this is an ordinary customer-vendor relationship, mediated by PayPerPost
* without any pre-review or kibitzing by the advertiser, the blogger makes a truthful statement about the blogger's experience about the product, but the statement would be impermissible marketing if made by the advertiser
* the FTC treats the advertiser as having made the blogger's statement

Prima Facie Elements of a 47 USC 230 Defense

47 USC 230(c)(1) reads:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

A successful 230(c)(1) defense breaks down into three prima facie elements:

1) the defendant must be a "provider or user of an interactive computer service"
2) the content generating the alleged liability must be "information provided by another information content provider"
3) the legal claim has to treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the third party content

230 has a number of statutory exclusions, but I don't think any of them are relevant to Example 5.

Application of 47 USC 230 to Example #5

With this in mind, the FTC's Example #5 satisfies the prima facie elements of a successful 230 defense as follows: the advertiser is the user of an interactive computer service, the blog post is content provided by another information content provider, and the FTC's theory that the advertiser adopts or endorses the blog post treats the advertiser as the publisher or speaker of the third party blogger's blog post.

I received significant skepticism about my characterization of the advertiser as the "user" of an interactive computer service. I can reach this conclusion in two ways. First, PayPerPost provides an interactive computer service, and the advertiser uses PayPerPost. Second, the advertiser is a "user" of some Internet connectivity provider just by getting online.

Admittedly, explanation #2 is expansive, perhaps disconcertingly so. By this reasoning, anyone online automatically qualifies as a "user" of an interactive computer service by definition, thus seemingly expanding the 230 immunization eligibility to everyone without restriction. While this may sound wrong, it’s entirely consistent with how courts have interpreted the term “user.” The leading case on the topic, the California Supreme Court opinion in Barrett v. Rosenthal, never provides a single crisp definition of "user" but seemed to contemplate that merely being online qualified. Some minor cases possibly read "user" more narrowly, but I think the dominant line of cases gives “user” an expansive definition.

From a doctrinal standpoint, I think the broad reading of 230's application makes a lot of sense. The cases over the past 13+ years have taught us that 230(c)(1) can be distilled into a simple syllogism: unless the plaintiff’s claim fits into one of the statutory exclusions (IP, federal crimes, ECPA), A isn't liable for third party B's online content or actions. Period.

In the FTC’s Example #5, A is the advertiser and B is the blogger. Applying the same syllogism as above, the advertiser can’t liable for the blogger's online content or actions. Period.

The fact that the advertiser paid the blogger to write the content doesn't change my analysis one bit. For example, in the 1998 Blumenthal v. Drudge case, AOL got a 230 defense for Matthew Drudge's allegedly defamatory content, even though AOL paid $3,000 a month for Drudge's columns and retained editorial control over the content. I'm pretty sure 230 has applied in other cases where the defendant paid for the content. If you can think of others, I’d appreciate the reminder.

Further, the payment doesn't create a respondeat superior relationship between the advertiser and blogger. There is no credible argument that the blogger is the advertiser’s employee. I don’t think the example indicates an agency relationship because the advertiser lacks the requisite control over the blogger. PayPerPost’s mediation of the advertiser-blogger relationship further reinforces the lack of agency; indeed, the advertiser may not even be communicating directly with the blogger. And even if the blogger were the advertiser’s employee or agent, 230 still might apply for the blogger’s statements that exceed the advertiser’s authorization. See Delfino v. Agilent and the Higher Balance case.

If you don't like the broad reading of "users" (even though I think it is defensible under the case law), then go back to my first explanation that both the advertiser and blogger are "users" of the interactive computer service provided by the blog advertising service provider (e.g., PayPerPost). This argument works just fine too.

Applicable 230 Precedent

Unfortunately, I can’t point to many 230 cases applying the immunization to circumstances where the defendant did not host or republish the allegedly tortious content. Most 230 cases involve a provider's liability for its user's content or actions (the “paradigmatic” 230 case).

In contrast, we don't see many cases interpreting the user defense, but then again, those lawsuits may be so tenuous anyway that they are rarely brought. For example, I could not find any specific cases applying 230 to the linking situation I critiqued in my SEC comments.

Even without any obvious precedent, I think the statute on its face leads easily to the conclusion that advertisers can't be liable for bloggers' independent posts. As I indicated in my initial post, I don't even see that as a close case under 230.

One reasonably close precedent, the Subway v. Quiznos case, hasn’t reached a solid 230 ruling yet. In that case, Quiznos reposted some user-created advertising videos, and Subway contended that the videos constituted false advertising. The court rejected Quiznos' 230 defense solely on the grounds that it was raised in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which the court said was too early. (This same issue arose in Barnes v. Yahoo, where the Ninth Circuit initially agreed with this court and then withdrew that portion of its opinion). Although 230 didn’t apply at the 12(b)(6) stage, could Quiznos claim 230 for the videos at a later stage of the proceeding? I think it can, even if it "adopted" the user-generated videos by republishing them, unless it actually authored the statements that are deemed false advertising. For examples where a republisher can claim 230 for content is putatively “endorses” through its republication, see, e.g., the Barrett case, the Batzel case, the Tefft case (one of the minor cases narrowly interpreting “user”), the D’Alonzo case and the Furber case. I’m sure I could find others.

I think the FTC's Example #5 is an even easier 230 case than Quiznos’ situation. Unlike Quiznos, the advertiser in Example #5 never republished the blog post or even signaled any adoption of or agreement with the post. With such a tenuous relationship between the advertiser and the blogger, the FTC’s overreaching—and the role 230 plays in preventing that overreaching—is even clearer.

Conclusion

As the old expression goes, when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So perhaps I’m just such a 230 enthusiast that I’m finding it in places it doesn’t belong.

However, having read many dozen 230 cases over the past 13 years, I’ve formed the strong opinion that courts treat 230 as saying A isn’t liable for third party B’s online content. If you accept that proposition (and resist the temptation to manufacture provisos and qualifications that don’t actually exist in the cases), then it should be clear why 230 preempts Example #5—because that’s exactly what the FTC is trying to do.

UPDATE: Paul Levy disagrees with my analysis in this post.

Posted by Eric at 11:55 AM | Derivative Liability , Marketing | TrackBack

October 06, 2009

Do the FTC's New Endorsement/Testimonial Rules Violate 47 USC 230?

By Eric Goldman

In reading the FTC's new rules on endorsements and testimonials in advertisements, I was struck by the FTC's expansive vision of advertiser liability for third party-caused violations. In particular, the FTC apparently has made the same analytical error that the SEC recently made in the SEC's proposal to hold securities issuers liable for third party content they link to. In my comments to the SEC, I explained that trying to hold a linker liable for content at the terminus of a link violates 47 USC 230.

In this case, in commentary to §255.1, the FTC provided example #5 (starting on page 63 of the PDF) clearly targeting PayPerPost/Izea and its competitors:

Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger’s endorsement. [my emphasis]

The blogger also is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. [See § 255.5.]

In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered.

Per this example, the FTC appears to think advertisers can be liable for a blogger's rogue content merely because there is an underlying sponsorship relationship. This situation is prima facie preempted by 47 USC 230. Frankly, this doesn't even look like a close case.

I'm kicking myself because I should have raised the 47 USC 230 concern with the FTC during the comment period. My weak excuse: too many misguided regulatory proposals, not enough Eric. The FTC's discussion prefacing its guidelines doesn't mention 47 USC 230 at all, which now makes me wonder if anyone raised the statutory concern to the FTC. Instead, the FTC breezily brushed off concerns about over-expansive advertiser liability by treating this as a situation where the advertiser assumes the risk that bloggers might write rogue content:

Imposing liability in these circumstances hinges on the determination that the advertiser chose to sponsor the consumer-generated content such that it has established an endorser-sponsor relationship. It is foreseeable that an endorser may exaggerate the benefits of a free product or fail to disclose a material relationship where one exists. In employing this means of marketing, the advertiser has assumed the risk that an endorser may fail to disclose a material connection or misrepresent a product, and the potential liability that accompanies that risk. The Commission, however, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, would consider the advertiser’s efforts to advise these endorsers of their responsibilities and to monitor their online behavior in determining what action, if any, would be warranted. [emphasis added]

Uh, no. As I tried to explain at the ABA Consumer Protection Conference this summer (which many FTC staffers attended), 47 USC 230 requires the FTC and other consumer protection agencies to fundamentally rethink their basic endorsement liability paradigms. If you're looking for a paper topic, I think the interplay because 47 USC 230 and government agencies' theories about liability for endorsing online content is ripe for smart analysis.

While an FTC enforcement action pursuant to its misguided advertiser liability theory should be an easy defense win, I don't expect we'll ever see that result. As we know, the FTC is fairly careful in selecting enforcement actions, and most defendants choose quickly settle rather than fight. Those that don't settle usually don't present the best facts to the court, and sometimes their lawyers don't even know about 47 USC 230.

If the issue ever does get to court, I'd expect the FTC to marshal up every plaintiff win under 230 to show how it can pin third party content on the advertiser. However, at the moment, I don't think any of the scrappy plaintiff wins bolster its theory. For example, I don't think the Roommates.com case helps because this isn't a situation where the advertiser has encouraged illegal content. I also don't think the Mazur case helps the FTC because the advertiser never chose the words communicated by the blogger.

Because it appears fundamentally inconsistent with 47 USC 230, I hope the FTC will reconsider its basic liability approach here.

UPDATE: In response to comments I've received on this post, I have provided a fuller explanation of my thinking about 47 USC 230 and the new guidelines.

Posted by Eric at 10:04 AM | Derivative Liability , Marketing | TrackBack

October 05, 2009

Ripoff Report Rolls to Another Win--Intellect Art v. Milewski

By Eric Goldman

Intellect Art Multimedia v. Milewski, 117024/08 (NY Sup. Ct. Sept. 15, 2009). For more background on the lawsuit, check out the companion blog.

This case involves the "Swiss Finance Academy," an expensive summer college program. A disgruntled student posted some criticisms about the program on Ripoff Report. See the post in question. The program brought a lawsuit against both the posting student and the Ripoff Report.

The plaintiff alleged defamation and a products liability claim against Ripoff Report. Both are dismissed per 47 USC 230. The court's discussion regarding the products liability claim is particularly interesting. First, the court says the site is a service, not a product, and therefore may be categorically excluded from any products liability doctrine. Second, the court says:

"the court does not need to reach this novel issue, since plaintiff has not even alleged that the website was in a defective condition which gave rise to its claimed injuries. Rather it was [the student's] purported posting that gave rise to plaintiff's injuries, not Xcentric's website itself. The claim that Ripoff Report was defectively designed to elicit defamatory statements from its users is devoid of commonsense and reasoning, is unsupported by law, and is, therefore, reject." [sic]

Oof. I've occasionally seen previous arguments that product liability doctrines get around 230. This case is one data point that they aren't...and arguments to the contrary are "devoid of commonsense and reasoning." Plaintiffs beware.

The plaintiff tried to add a few new claims against Ripoff Report and none of those get a chance mostly because of deficient allegations rather than 230. The tortious interference claims fail for lack of allegations about the specific affected relationships. The contract fails because the plaintiff isn't a third party beneficiary of the Ripoff Report-student contract. The negligent misrepresentation claim failed for lack of a special relationship. The negligence claim failed for lack of an alleged duty. The negligent falsehood claim fails for lack of alleged special damages.

In the end, the Ripoff Report walks away from this lawsuit.

The student also gets a good ruling. The court rejects the defamation claim because it characterizes all of the student's statements as protected opinion. [Note: the Ripoff Report posting was under a pseudonym, so it's not confirmed that the student is the same person as the poster.] It seemed to me that the court was cutting corners here. For example, the report said that the school only fed students toast for breakfast. That seemed like a pretty factual assertion to me; I'm not sure how to style that statement as an opinion. Even so, the court cut the corners for a good reason:

"the website, when viewed in its full context, reveals that Milewski is a disgruntled consumer and that his statements reflect his personal opinion based on his personal dealing with plaintiff. They are subjective expressions of consumer dissatisfaction with plaintiff and the statements are not actionable because they are Milewski's personal opinion."

Milewski isn't totally off the hook, as there are still unresolved issues about unpaid tuition. But otherwise, this court shuts down another vendor's attempt to squelch negative feedback about its business practices.

David Johnson has a more plaintiff-friendly take on this case.

Posted by Eric at 09:59 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

September 29, 2009

Another Copyright Owner Doesn't Like 512(c)...and Thinks an Anti-Copying Filter is Copyright Infringing--Scott v. Scribd

By Eric Goldman

Scott v. Scribd, Inc., 4:09-cv-03039 (S.D. Tex. complaint filed Sept. 18, 2009) (linked to a copy of the complaint hosted on Scribd, of course!). If you're interested, my page of Scribd uploads.

I hadn't planned to blog on this lawsuit, but I was finally prompted to read the complaint and thought there was enough stuff to ridicule to warrant a brief post:

There can be a fine line between brilliance and crazy when it comes to new lawsuits, and this one falls on the crazy side of that equation. It is a frontal assault on the DMCA online safe harbors and a backdoor assault on the burgeoning efforts to develop anti-copying filters. I think both efforts are wildly misdirected.

The 512(c) Assault

With respect to 512(c) assault, the plaintiff doesn't bring much new to the party. If 17 USC 512(c) preempts all flavors of copyright infringement (both direct and secondary), then this lawsuit is probably DOA.

Note: Fred kindly linked to my write-up of the recent UMG v. Veoh ruling but took issue with my assessment that it's ambiguous if 512(c) only preempts direct copyright infringement or all flavors of infringement. He correctly notes that the legislative history is entirely clear that 512 preempts all flavors…but this only helps if a court reaches that legislative history. On its face, the statute has express exclusions that mirror language from the secondary copyright infringement tests, so other courts could simply rely on the statute to narrow the statutory protection only to direct infringement. Indeed, a number of courts have implicitly reached this interpretation without acknowledging the ambiguity; which made the UMG v. Veoh's determination that the words in the statute mean something different than the exact same words used as part of the vicarious copyright infringement test all the more interesting.

Back to Scribd's 512(c) defense. Recall that I said the lawsuit was “probably” DOA. As part of trying to oust Scribd from 512(c), the plaintiffs challenge Scribd's compliance with the statutory formalities by noting an inconsistency between Scribd's contact info on its site and in its copyright office filing. (See para. 35-36). It's possible that this highly technical "problem" could be a greater threat to Scribd's 512(c) eligibility than the plaintiff's more substantive assaults.

The Copyright Filter Assault

With respect to the fact that Scribd uses copyrighted works to create a filter to prevent their reloading, I think this lawsuit is way, way off-base.

First, the Fourth Circuit recently held that the Turnitin anti-plagiarism filter (built using copyrighted works that were, in some cases, included in the system through quasi-coercion) was a fair use. See my blog post on the district court ruling AV v. iParadigms for more detail on the coercion and fair use points. Further, in that case, Turnitin monetizes its database directly by licensing access to it, while the complaint apparently alleges that Scribd uses the database only for its own filtering purposes and does not license it to others. As a result, Scribd's internal usage of the database (without separate monetization) seems like it would tilt the fair use equitable factors even more clearly in its favor.

Alternatively, courts could reach fair use by concluding that Scribd's copying into the filter is an intermediate copy to create a non-infringing/fair use output. See, e.g., Sega v. Accolade; Kelly v. Arriba; Perfect 10 v. Amazon. In fact, as far as the complaint indicates, Scribd never republishes any of its copy used for filtering, while Turnitin republished portions of its copies as part of its originality reports.

Second, several courts recently have encouraged defendants to build filters to suppress infringing or wrongful behavior and given the defendants extra legal protection because they are using these filters. See Io v. Veoh; UMG v. Veoh; Tiffany v. eBay; Cisneros v. Yahoo. For example, the recent UMG v. Veoh case lauded Veoh for upgrading its infringement suppression filter from a weak hashing technology to the more robust Audible Magic system. Given this trend, it seems likely that future courts will legally protect efforts to build more robust anti-copying filters, even if copyrighted works are copied along the way.

Third, this attack on the filtering efforts, and the fact that it's probably not Rule 11 sanctionable despite its ridiculousness, shows just how misdirected copyright law has gotten. The plaintiffs seek to set up what Wikipedia says is a "Morton's Fork" (which, I think, most people refer to as a Hobson's choice). A service provider can choose not to automatically filter the site, in which case infringement can run rampant and excise the service provider from 512(c) based on the statutory technicalities and exclusions. But if the service provider builds a filter to automatically filter for copyright, the plaintiffs believe the service provider should face liability for building the filter.

Courts recognize and would like to avoid this dilemma, and the copyright owners' countervailing interests are weak. Other than the theoretical and highly formalistic loss of control over their copyrighted works, exactly how are copyright owners harmed by having their works in Scribd's anti-copying filtering database? (Some of us would argue that the only harm is if the filter actually blocks potentially valuable exposure that might have come from having the works published through Scribd, but I don't think that's what the copyright owners are complaining about!). The filter helps copyright owners prevent future infringements, so in that respect it only preserves, not reduces, the value of the copyrighted works. Thus, without any harm, lawsuits like this simply reflect a ridiculous effort to use copyright law to stop progress. This isn't what copyright law is about, and it’s dispiriting to see some copyright owners try nonetheless.

Posted by Eric at 10:47 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

September 18, 2009

Making Sense of the $32M Contributory Trademark Infringement Judgment Against a Web Host--Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc

By Eric Goldman

Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 5:07-CV-03952 (N.D. Cal. jury verdict returned Aug. 28, 2009). My blog post of the December 2008 ruling on summary judgment motions in the case.

Last month, a jury returned a $32+ million verdict against a web host (and related parties) for contributing to trademark infringement committed by its customers. This ruling was breathtaking on a number of fronts, but two attributes stood out: the size of the verdict and the fact that a web host was contributorily liable. Online cases interpreting contributory trademark liability are rare, and the few cases we've seen--such as the 1999 Lockheed v. NSI case, which remains the flagship case on the topic, and the Tiffany v. eBay case--generally have been defense-favorable. Indeed, I can't think of a prior case where a web host lost a contributory trademark infringement ruling, although Lockheed v. NSI case dicta implicitly contemplates that a web host could have the requisite degree of "direct control and monitoring of the instrumentalities used to infringe" that NSI, as a domain name registrar, lacked in that case.

Because this case takes us into uncharted waters, the ruling looks significant on first blush. However, some things have been bothering me about the case. First, because we're working with a jury verdict, it's hard to identify and distill the key facts that led to Akanoc's loss. If nothing else, the jury verdict blunts the precedential impact of the case; there's no written opinion, there's nothing citable, and by definition the ruling is fact-dependent. Second, I have been having this nagging suspicion that Akanoc did something goofy that stood out from industry standards. In contrast, the December 2008 ruling in this case, though troubling, didn't raise huge red flags for me, so the result seemed like an unexpected odd turn.

As we post-mortem the case, two key facts are emerging. First, Akanoc's defense invoked a jurisdictional component that any infringing activity wasn't taking place in the US. I believe the basic argument is that Akanoc's web hosting customers are Chinese and marketing the allegedly infringing goods to Chinese customers. All that may be true, but it's not clear how well that jurisdictional argument works for a US-based company (Akanoc is located in Fremont, CA). Accordingly, I don't think I would have advanced this jurisdictional defense if it were my choice.

Second, and much more importantly, Louis Vuitton claims it sent 19 takedown notices to Akanoc and most were ignored. I haven't researched the case enough to see the exact wording of the takedown notices, and I'm often skeptical of such claims because IP owners routinely send ridiculously broad takedown notices or requests with unreasonable demands that deserve to be ignored (see, e.g., Tiffany's demands that eBay enforce rules that Tiffany made up). Nevertheless, if the jury decided that Louis Vuitton sent multiple proper takedown notices that were ignored, then this verdict wouldn't be all that surprising or, frankly, all that earth-shattering. Although there is no statutory notice-and-takedown regime for online trademark complaints, I think many web hosts (and other intermediaries) follow the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime--built for copyright complaints--for trademarks as well. If Akanoc's failure to honor Louis Vuitton's takedown notices was the dispositive fact for the jury, it's unlikely that many web hosts would find themselves in a similar position. In that case, then, this case is hardly as disconcerting as it appears on the surface.

Having said that, I think the entire web hosting industry would benefit from a clear rule that notice-and-takedown eliminates contributory trademark liability, as well as clarity about what constitutes a proper takedown notice. Due to the uncertainty of this lawsuit's result, if I ran a web hosting business, I would probably take down users in response to less clear or more expansive trademark take-down requests than I would in the copyright realm where 512(c)(3) spells out the specific requirements for a proper notice. In that respect, then, I think the likely consequence of this case is to make web hosting customers more vulnerable to losing service and going dark on the basis of bogus or questionable trademark take-down requests.

We haven't seen much movement towards a statutory solution to online contributory trademark infringement problems. Maybe it's time. Or, perhaps the Second Circuit's Tiffany v. eBay ruling will give us enough clarity to sort out the issues without statutory intervention.

More on this case:

* Louis Vuitton's chest-beating press release
* Joyce Cutler at BNA/Pike & Fischer (subscription required, unfortunately)
* Marc Randazza with links to several source documents

Posted by Eric at 02:52 PM | Derivative Liability , Trademark | TrackBack

September 17, 2009

Veoh Gets Yet Another Terrific 512 Defense Win--UMG v. Veoh

By Eric Goldman

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2:07-cv-05744-AHM-AJW (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2009)

What's the difference between the market leader and an also-ran? When the also-ran wins its third big legal victory in a row, the first question everyone asks is "what does this mean for the market leader?"

Specifically, when the copyright infringement lawsuits were filed against YouTube in 2007, everyone got really excited about a looming legal determination of the legitimacy of YouTube's practices. (See, e.g., 1, 2). But, we haven't learned very much about substantive law from YouTube's litigation in the 2+ years since. Instead, while the YouTube cases are mired in procedural heck, Veoh has notched three powerful defense-side wins that surely help YouTube (see my previous posts on the Io case and the earlier 512 ruling in this UMG case). These cases have established Veoh as the litigation leader of the user-generated online video business, even if it's not the market leader.

In the December ruling in this case, Judge Matz concluded that the videos in Veoh's network were "stored at the direction of users" even though Veoh's system technologically manipulated the user-supplied video. Having established that, this ruling addresses whether Veoh met the other requirements of 17 USC 512(c).

Actual/Red Flags Knowledge

A service provider loses 512(c) eligibility if it does not expeditiously remove infringing items after getting actual knowledge or has sufficient awareness of infringement. This standard has proven tricky because plaintiffs keep trying to establish knowledge and awareness based on something other than the 512(c)(3) notices contemplated by the statute. In this case, everyone agreed that Veoh responded expeditiously to 512(c)(3) notices, so UMG argued—and the judge rejected—that Veoh got enough culpable scienter from other things, such as

* Veoh was in the music business, and music is protected by copyright.
* Veoh had tagged videos as "music videos"
* Veoh bought search ads keyed to the titles of UMG copyrighted works (but all identified instances were for artists where Veoh had a license covering some of the artists’ works)
* a non-512(c)(3) compliant notice categorically opting out for specified artists. The court rightly rejects such notices as construing actual knowledge because artist names are too imprecise (they do not identify either the infringed works or the infringing works.

The latter point is a contentious one. Compare the wrongly decided 2001 ALS Scan v. RemarQ case, which said that the service provider had to assume that everything published in USENET newsgroups containing the plaintiff's trademarks was categorically verboten. Also compare the Hendrickson case (distinguished in a footnote). However, the judge leaves open the possibility that a non-512(c)(3) compliant notice could still confer actual knowledge if the copyright owner categorically identifies the title of the infringed work or made the representation that all works of a particular artist were unconsented.

The judge also rejects the argument that Veoh had generalized knowledge that widespread infringing activity was occurring on its site.

Finally, UMG argued that Veoh got the requisite scienter from its failure to use filtering technology properly. Veoh went through three iterations of filtering: first, none, then in 2006, a hashing technology, and finally in 2007, Audible Magic. UMG argues that Veoh should have adopted Audible Magic earlier and should have filtered its back catalog quicker once it adopted the technology. The court rejects this argument because (1) Veoh wasn't obligated to adopt filtering technology at all, and (2) it showed good faith by migrating from a poor solution (the hashing technology) to a more robust system.

System Control

To be eligible for 512(c), a service provider also must show that it lacked the "right and ability to control" the infringements. The court clarifies that this must mean something other than the operation of the system and the ability to take down content; otherwise, every service provider would be disqualified. Veoh's ability to deploy filtering software is also irrelevant per 512(m) (a rarely discussed corner of the statute).

However, this court is bound by the awful and antiquated Napster precedent, which had a very expansive view of "right and ability to control." The court sidesteps Napster by saying the Ninth Circuit's Napster interpretations only apply to the prima facie case of vicarious copyright infringement, not the identical words contained in 512(c). This is an awkward conclusion because (1) the words are identical, and (2) in ccBill, the Ninth Circuit held that the 512(c) words "direct financial benefit"--immediately adjacent to "right and ability to control" in 512(c)--should be interpreted the same as the usage in the prima facie case. So this court reaches the tough conclusion that "direct financial benefit" means the same thing in 512(c) and the prima facie case while the words "right and ability to control" do not.

This dichotomous language parsing seems particularly unstable. However, it is a logical consequence of the Ninth Circuit's steadfast but ill-fated refusal to overturn the analytically corrupt Napster ruling, which has been horking Ninth Circuit Internet copyright jurisprudence since 2001.

Termination of Repeat Infringers

Finally, the service provider is obligated to terminate repeat infringers. UMG argued that Veoh is disqualified because it doesn't automatically terminate users whose videos are filtered out by the Audible Magic technology. The judge disagrees because Audible Magic's system is a black box, so no one knows how many false positives it produces. Further, other courts have said that a compliant 512(c)(3) notice isn't accurate enough to automatically trigger an obligation to kick the target user off, so Audible Magic's fallibility makes its assessments even less compelling.

UMG also argued that it was unreasonable that Veoh did not kick off users who had uploaded multiple files that were covered under the same 512(c)(3) notice. (Veoh had a two-strikes rule for those users). The judge rejects that argument too, saying that Veoh's policy was appropriate.

Overall Assessment

Overall, this case is another terrific defense win. In every instance of ambiguity, the judge sided with the defense, repeatedly noting that copyright owners have to shoulder more burden to prepare compliant 512(c)(3) notices and service providers have no burden to filter or take other steps that copyright owners demand but aren't in the statute. Some of this categorical siding with the defense might also reflect that UMG appears to have annoyed this judge. I laughed out loud when I saw FN 10, which says "Veoh cited Io Group extensively in its opening brief. UMG did not mention it at all in its Opposition." You can run from precedent, UMG, but you can't hide.

While there is a lot of good news in this opinion, it's also noteworthy for what it didn't say. As I've mentioned repeatedly in past blog posts, 512(c) has a critical embedded ambiguity--does it insulate service providers from all three flavors of civil copyright infringement (direct, contributory and vicarious) or only direct infringement? Amazingly, courts generally have avoided discussing this crucial threshold consideration, instead proceeding ahead with an assumption (not always the same assumption from case to case!) on this crucial question but not resolving it. This case is no different; the court apparently makes an unexamined assumption that 512(c) is a defense to all three flavors of infringement. This is a terrific assumption for Veoh, YouTube and all 512 defendants, but it would be even better if the court actually said that.

The court does come closer than many other courts to addressing this ambiguity when it said there was a difference between the prima facie vicarious copyright infringement and 512(c) uses of the phrase "right and ability to control." However, I will be very interested to see if the Ninth Circuit agrees with that dichotomy on appeal. Even if they affirm the judgment, I suspect this dichotomy won’t survive intact.

Posted by Eric at 01:57 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

September 08, 2009

Yahoo's Search Results Snippets Aren't False Endorsement--Stayart v. Yahoo

By Eric Goldman

Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., 2009 WL 2840478 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 28, 2009)

Earlier this year, I blogged about Beverly Stayart's quixotic lawsuit against Yahoo and others for showing search results snippets that contained her name adjacent to spammy porn and adult content links. Last month, the court efficiently dismissed her federal Lanham Act "false endorsement" claims and then dismissed the remainder of her lawsuit on procedural grounds, allowing Stayart to refile those claims in state court if she chooses. (She shouldn't but she probably will). The court rejected Stayart's Lanham Act false endorsement claim on three different grounds.

Commerciality

The court says that Stayart has not made adequate efforts to commercialize her name sufficient to give her standing for a Lanham Act claim. I agree with the court's factual assessment. Although Stayart alleged that she has been an active participant in online communities, she hasn't done anything to commercialize her name. Stated differently, if Stayart has standing under the Lanham Act's false endorsement provisions, then just about everyone in the world would.

Confusion

The court rejects any likelihood of consumer confusion. I don't particularly like the court's reasoning, which seems to be that since Stayart has lived a squeaky clean life, no one would believe that she could be associated with the seedier activity promoted in the spammy links. This reasoning seems completely inconsistent with the nature of gossip. Nevertheless, the court is completely right when it says "No one who accessed these [spammy] links could reasonably conclude that Bev Stayart endorsed the products at issue." I think this is true because the spammy links lack internal credibility enough for anyone to believe them at all.

With respect to Various, the defendant whose adult website was advertised at some of the spammy links, Stayart argued initial interest confusion because people interested in her might be induced to click on the spammy links. The court rejects the argument by saying "The type of person looking for information about Bev Stayart would not be fooled into using an online adult-oriented dating website." I'm not sure why the court thinks this is true; people have all sorts of “hidden interests.” Nevertheless, I'd like to think no prudent person would be fooled into clicking on spammy porn links in a search engine, even if it referenced Stayart's name.

47 USC 230

The court's discussion up to this point has some odd reasoning, but the 47 USC 230 discussion is quite bizarre. The court's conclusion is that "Yahoo! should be entitled to immunity because it acted as an interactive computer service, even though Stayart’s claims are nominal intellectual property claims....Immunizing Yahoo! from Stayart’s claims would not limit the laws pertaining to intellectual property because Stayart does not state a valid intellectual property claim."

What? Is the court saying that it doesn't need to discuss 230 because Stayart failed to state a valid IP claim, or is the court saying that Yahoo qualifies for the 230 immunity because doing so would be consistent with 230's policies--even if the court has to ignore 230's statutory exclusion for IP claims? The court could have found a role for 230 by concluding that the Lanham Act false endorsement claim wasn't really an IP claim at all, any more than a Lanham Act false advertising claim is an IP claim, but I don't think the court said that.

So I'm not sure what the 230 references means, and I personally think the court would have been better off not discussing 230 at all. (As Rebecca writes, the whole 230 digression was "obviously useless.") At minimum, I don’t think it would be accurate to say that this court found a 230 defense to a federal IP claim. As a result, I’m filing this case in the bucket of “not very interesting” 230 cases.

Note: we already knew that 230 protects search engines from liability for their search results snippets when IP claims aren’t involved. See, e.g., Maughan v. Google and Murawski v. Pataki. A British court also reached the same result on common law grounds. See the Metropolitan International Schools case.

Conclusion

The court denies Various' 230 defense because its association with the banner ad was unclear. Having dismissed the federal Lanham Act claims completely, the court then declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court also rejects Stayart's guffaw-inducing request for sanctions against the defendants for having the temerity of moving to dismiss her complaint.

I'm glad to see Stayart's lawsuit quickly dismissed. It was a ridiculous lawsuit from inception. At the same time, the court's corner-cutting leaves me lamenting the absence of better doctrines to deter junk lawsuits like this in the first place. It's actually can be tricky to say that any trademark complaint is "wrong" given how much doctrinal contortions some courts have indulged in--even when lawsuits like this are so clearly wrong.

More comments on the case: Rebecca Tushnet, Mike Masnick (who has had first-hand dealings with Stayart) and Ars Technica

Posted by Eric at 03:05 PM | Derivative Liability , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

September 03, 2009

Employer Isn't Liable for Employee Misuse of the Internet--Maypark v. Securitas

By Eric Goldman

Maypark v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 2009 WL 2750994 (Wis. App. Ct. Sept. 1, 2009)

As part of my efforts to keep up with new cyberlaw developments, I read a lot of cases involving yucky facts. But even with my constitution hardened over time, occasionally I still find some cases that really gross me out. So for this case, I'm just going to quote the key factual sentences from the court's opinion:

"At some point, Schmidt copied the photographs of approximately thirty female employees to a flash drive. He printed the photographs at home, ejaculated on them, and posted pictures of the adulterated photos on adult websites he created on Yahoo!." He made these postings without using the company's connectivity.

Schmidt was the employee of a third party vendor that provided security for a Wisconsin manufacturer's facility. The affected manufacturer's employees sued the security vendor for negligent training and supervision. In the trial court, the employees got total damages of $1.4M.

The appellate court reversed this ruling and held that Schmidt's employer was not negligent as a matter of law because Schmidt's misconduct wasn't foreseeable. Implicitly, the court rejects the argument that merely providing Internet access to employees, without more, constitutes per se negligent supervision or training. As the court says, "There is nothing inherently dangerous about permitting employees to access the internet at work."

The court goes on to say that public policy limits the employer's exposure to damages here. First, as the court says, "It would be an understatement to say Schmidt's actions were bizarre and unexpected. Schmidt's actions were unimaginable." Second, "employers have no duty to supervise employees' private conduct or to persistently scan the world wide web to ferret out potential employee misconduct."

This case reminded me a little of Delfino v. Aglient, where an employer avoided liability for an employee's rogue Internet activities on 47 USC 230 grounds. I never felt comfortable with 47 USC 230 applied to employer-employee relationships, but I liked that it offered an easy and decisive limiting doctrine to cut off employer liability for bizarre employee Internet conduct (otherwise, we get $1.4M judgments at the trial court level). In the Maypark case, I like how the appellate court anchored its reasoning, in part, on public policy grounds without getting into ambiguous statutory grounds like 230. I found the last statement I quoted ("employers have no duty...to persistently scan the world wide web to ferret out potential employee misconduct") especially apropos.

Posted by Eric at 10:29 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

August 26, 2009

Yahoo Subpoenas Expedia in American Airlines Lawsuit

By Eric Goldman

Yahoo and American Airlines are still tussling over Yahoo's sale of American Airlines' trademarks as keyword triggers (see background at 1, 2, 3). According to Yahoo, American Airlines is arguing that online travel agencies such as Expedia are directly infringing American Airlines' trademarks by buying keywords from Yahoo, which would make Yahoo a secondary infringer by facilitating Expedia's direct infringement.

From my perspective, American Airlines' direct infringement argument looks questionable because Expedia and others should be fully protected by the First Sale/trademark exhaustion doctrine for advertising that it sells American Airlines' branded services--just like any other retailer is free to advertise the trademarks of the manufacturers it vends. However, perhaps American Airlines restricts Expedia's advertising by contract and is taking the position that Expedia exceeded the contract and such a contract breach constitutes trademark infringement. American Airlines is also arguing that Yahoo is tortiously interfering with the American Airlines-Expedia contract, so that seems possible. Even then, it's not clear to me that if Expedia exceeds the contract by buying trademarked keywords, the contract breach would qualify as trademark infringement. The analysis should go back to default trademark law, which should excuse Expedia's purchases under the trademark exhaustion doctrine.

ASIDE AND REQUEST FOR HELP: I have done a fair amount of digging trying to find cases that apply the trademark exhaustion doctrine to the legitimate resale of third party services. I have only been able to find the trademark exhaustion doctrine applied to the resale of physical goods/chattels, not the resale of services, but it seems like the doctrine should apply to both. The travel business is a great example. Travel agents routinely advertise to consumers that they resell travel packages that include a flight on, say, American Airlines. I have been struggling to find any cases or other supportive sources indicating that such advertisements by travel agents are protected by trademark exhaustion. Presumably, in some cases, the advertising and resale is expressly permitted by a contract with the upstream service provider (such as in a consolidation contract between the travel agent consolidator and the airline), but I'm sure there are plenty of cases where there is no contract at all. Any tips/referrals/suggestions on cases applying trademark exhaustion to the legitimate resale of services would be very much appreciated. END OF ASIDE

So, American Airlines is pointing the finger at Expedia as the direct infringer. [Even though, conspicuously, American Airlines isn't suing Expedia, for reasons I explore in my Brand Spillovers paper]. Naturally, Yahoo wants to know more about Expedia's possible exposure as a direct infringer so that Yahoo's defense can include disproving the direct infringement. Therefore, Yahoo sent a subpoena to Expedia requesting all kinds of goodies, such as the American Airlines-Expedia contract, consumer conversion rates from sponsored link ads, and other information about consumer behavior on Expedia.

Not surprisingly, Expedia responded "no thanks" to Yahoo's request. I can think of at least three reasons why. First, Expedia would rather not spend any time and money on someone else's lawsuit. Second, some of the information Yahoo is asking for could have significant competitive advantage to Yahoo. Yahoo partially competes with Expedia via its Yahoo Travel service, plus Yahoo's knowledge of the profitability of its referred customers could affect Yahoo's management of the travel category auctions. Third, some evidence could prompt American Airlines to close the litigation circle by suing Expedia directly.

In response to Expedia's nyet, Yahoo is seeking a motion to compel Expedia's response to its subpoena. Typically, these discovery disputes result in a split-the-baby outcome (either via a settlement or ordered by a judge) where Yahoo gets less than it asked but Expedia also forks over some info. We'll see. Meanwhile, Yahoo's effort is consistent with a trend I first spotted in connection with the Rhino Sports case--advertiser behavior regarding keywords has significant value in litigation discovery and for competitive purposes, so I expect to see more subpoenas like this over time.

Posted by Eric at 09:37 AM | Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Marketing , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

August 24, 2009

Online Retailer Isn't Liable for User Comments--Cornelius v. DeLuca

By Eric Goldman

Cornelius v. DeLuca, 2009 WL 2568044 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2009)

DeLuca runs bodybuilding.com, a fitness website and online retailer. The plaintiffs sell dietary supplements ("syntrax," whatever that is). The plaintiffs allege that their competitors posted shill reviews to bodybuilding.com designed to harm the plaintiffs' business. The plaintiffs sued both bodybuilding.com and the putative shillers. This ruling deals only with bodybuilding.com's liability.

As you know, these facts set up an easy defense win per 47 USC 230. To get around 230, the plaintiffs allege that bodybuilding.com was in a "conspiracy" relationship with the shillers. I know conspiracy has been raised as a 230 bypass before, but I'm struggling to remember another case that decisively addressed the argument. This court tackles the issue squarely and efficiently dismisses the claim (without any citations). The only thing that matters to the court is whether the defendants posted the allegedly tortious content. Because the answer is no, case dismissed.

Some other 47 USC 230 cases that have reached analogous results:

* Joyner v. Lazzareschi: conspiracy argued but not alleged
* Higher Balance v. Quantum Future Group: no "alter ego" liability
* Cisneros v. Yahoo: no "aiding and abetting" liability. Accord: Goddard v. Google
* Best Western v. Furber: no liability for co-website operator activities

A tip to plaintiffs' lawyers: STOP TRYING TO PLEAD AROUND 47 USC 230!

Posted by Eric at 07:07 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

August 20, 2009

Private High School Not Liable for Cyberbullying--DC v. Harvard-Westlake

By Eric Goldman

D.C. v. Harvard-Westlake School, 2009 WL 2500343 (Cal. App. Ct. Aug. 14, 2009)

Harvard-Westlake is a highly-regarded private school in the Los Angeles basin with an impressive alumni roster and a lot of very affluent parents. I've known a few alums and, based on their descriptions, they seemed to have a remarkable and resource-rich experience far beyond what I had in public school.

DC was a Harvard-Westlake high school student and an aspiring entertainer. He ran a self-promotional website that contained a guestbook. Unfortunately, some of DC's peers were not fans of his, and they littered his guestbook with hateful homophobic "death threats." (I put that in quotes because they were ultimately deemed not to be serious threats.) It really breaks my heart to see coordinated venomous attacks like this among high schoolers. I understand that experimentation and limits-testing is part of the teenage experience, but IMO the hostility of these comments crossed the line. The death threats were so disconcerting that DC's parents contacted the local police, who brought in the FBI. Eventually the authorities advised DC to change schools. DC and his family followed this advice, requiring his entire family to relocate. The police ultimately decided not to prosecute the attacking students; according to one news report I saw, that decision was based on a conclusion that the attackers never actually intended to physically harm DC.

DC and his parents initially sued only Harvard-Westlake for a long list of claims, largely predicated on the school's allegedly derelict response to the students' attacks on DC. Among other things, the attacking students used Harvard-Westlake's computer network as part of their attacks, and the school did not suspend or expel any of the attacking students (although news reports indicate that the students were disciplined in some unspecified manner). The plaintiffs also complained that the student newspaper (supervised by a faculty member) published numerous stories about these incidents, including disclosing DC's new residence and school and repeating claims of his alleged homosexuality.

Subsequently, DC and his family also sued the attacking students and their parents. Needless to say, this has spawned a lengthy and expensive legal battle. The initial complaint was filed in 2005 and the proceedings are still going strong.

With respect to Harvard-Westlake as a defendant, DC's parents signed an enrollment contract that contained an arbitration clause and a fee-shifting provision. In 2005, the trial court ordered the Harvard-Westlake dispute to arbitration and stayed the actions against the attacking students and their parents until the arbitration was completed.

In Fall 2006, the arbitrator issued her first substantive ruling--the one that initially triggered my alert. In that ruling, the arbitrator dismissed several claims, including a state "hate crime" civil claim (the statute expressly protects sexual orientation) against the school on 47 USC 230 grounds. The arbitrator's ruling means that even if the school's computer network was used in the attack, the school isn't liable for that. Given its age, this is old news, and it isn't precedential because the ruling was made in arbitration. Nevertheless, in light of the various ongoing concerns about cyberbullying, I think this remains an interesting data point.

Subsequently in 2007, the arbitrator dismissed the remaining claims against the school and, per the fee-shifting agreement, awarded fees and costs to the school of over a half-million dollars. Last week's ruling in this case deals with (among other things) the plaintiffs' effort to avoid this award of fees and costs. They get a little relief from this court. To avoid discouraging plaintiffs with the specter of possible liability for defense costs, California's hate crime statute has its own "one-way" fee-shifting provision only for successful plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court concludes that public policy trumps the parties' enrollment contract and prohibits the plaintiffs from having to pay arbitration costs or defense attorneys' fees related to the hate crimes claim despite the contract.

The opinion isn't entirely clear about what happens next, but I believe the trial court ought to sever out any of the arbitration costs and defense legal fees tied to the defense of the state hate crimes claim. However, because the plaintiffs raised a long list of other claims in their lawsuit, I think a lot of defense legal fees still should be awardable under the fee-shifting provision in the enrollment contract. If so, the plaintiffs eventually will have a write a check of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the school.

I've previously blogged on other lawsuits involving high schoolers being mean to each other. The Sandler v. Calcagni and Finkel cases stands out most in my mind. These lawsuits seem to have some commonalities--they can be long-lasting all-out litigation wars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees. Based on my limited observations, my working hypothesis is that lawsuits over bad high schooler-on-high schooler behavior have no real chance of improving the plaintiff's life, regardless of the court's final disposition. Testing this hypothesis might be an interesting area to study. I wonder if a method like restorative justice might yield more satisfying results for plaintiffs than decade-long lawsuits.

I'm also wondering if Harvard-Westlake could have and should have done more to protect DC. I don't think the school was an appropriate defendant, but at the same time, there was clearly a crisis in its community that was detrimentally affecting the ability of one of its students to enjoy life. I'd welcome your thoughts about how schools can appropriately intervene in student-on-student cyberbullying attacks when they occur.

A final note: the court opinion does not mention either DC's identity or his parents' identity, so I've made the decision that it's not important for my blog post to identify the plaintiffs by name either. However, it was trivially easy to identify the plaintiffs. For example, you can see a list of most litigants from the lower court record in Case Number: BC332406 at the LA Superior Court website.

Posted by Eric at 02:12 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

August 14, 2009

Flowbee Latest Trademark Owner to Sue Google--Flowbee v. Google

By Eric Goldman

Flowbee International, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2:09-cv-00199 (S.D Tex. complaint filed Aug. 13, 2009) [NB: the complaint is split into 2 PDFs totaling 8+ MB]

After the Jurin and Ascentive lawsuits against Google dissolved, the Google lawsuit tally is once again on the rise. Flowbee is the latest trademark owner to line up against Google. This brings the total number of AdWords lawsuits against Google back up to 8.

I can't do a redline comparison to see how much of this complaint is a clone-and-revise, but I definitely recognized a lot of language from American Airlines' complaints against Google and Yahoo. Most conspicuously, this complaint ripped off the stock Gibson Dunn apology (in Para. 6) that Flowbee "does not bring this lawsuit lightly." It appears that this catchphrase has become the equivalent of the American flag lapel pin for politicians--you have to wear it or else you are clearly anti-American. Similarly, it seems like the emerging trend is that if you don't declare your heavy heart for suing the beloved Google, by negative inference you clearly must be engaged in litigation frivolity. I wonder how Gibson Dunn feels that another law firm is invoking its catchphrase.

I can't recall if language in Para. 63 is just copied from the Gibson Dunn complaint, but this complaint says "A statistically significant number of consumers are likely to believe falsely that it was Flowbee who 'sponsored' the links that appear above or alongside the PageRank search engine results." This, of course, remains one of the most crucial unresolved empirical questions underlying all of the AdWords-related lawsuits: exactly what do consumers think is the reason they are seeing specific keyword-triggered ads? For now, I'm more interested in a procedural question: I would love to know the exact steps Flowbee and its lawyers took to satisfy themselves of this factual statement before asserting it.

If it had not sued, Flowbee would have automatically been governed by the Firepond class action lawsuit (representing all Texas trademark owners) if that case ever gets class certification. As a result, Flowbee could have just free-rode on that lawsuit. I wonder just how much Flowbee is losing from competitive keyword ads to justify the costs of bringing its own standalone action.

The current roster of pending AdWords cases:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google and now Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google
* Rosetta Stone v. Google
* Flowbee v. Google

Posted by Eric at 10:01 AM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

August 12, 2009

2009 Cyberspace Law Syllabus and Some Comments

By Eric Goldman

I have posted my syllabus for this semester's Cyberspace Law course. This blog post describes the changes from my 2008 course reader. For more on my pedagogical approaches to the course, see my Teaching Cyberlaw article.

Trademark

* Deleted the Tiffany v. eBay case. This is a really rich and fascinating case, but it is really long and I ran out of time to cover it last year. Also, it will be mooted in the not-too-distant future by a Second Circuit opinion.

* Replaced the Playboy v. Netscape and FragranceNet keyword advertising cases with Hearts on Fire v. Blue Nile. The Hearts on Fire case isn't a perfect teaching case, but it discusses use in commerce, likelihood of consumer confusion/initial interest confusion, and a bit of the policy issues. I suspect a number of my Cyberlaw colleagues are teaching the Rescuecom case, but I chose not to. First, it is doctrinally narrow. Second, it is a confusing opinion. Third, I tried to teach it as a last-minute substitution in my IP survey course last semester and was not satisfied with the results. Finally, it involves the less common fact pattern of keyword sales rather than keyword purchases. So I decided that this year the Hearts on Fire case could cover all the necessary issues adequately.

An interesting note: this is the first time in 15 years that I am not teaching a Playboy case in Cyberlaw. Frankly, I had expected to teach at least one Playboy case in Cyberlaw forevermore!

* Added Google's trademark policy. I'm a little surprised it never occurred to me before to include this in my reader.

* Updated my all-new keyword advertising slides from my May presentation.

Copyright

* Deleted the Perfect 10 v. ccBill and Perfect 10 v. Visa cases. I have been struggling with how to teach the Ninth Circuit's Perfect 10 troika of cases for the last couple of years. The troika was over 100 pages of reading that nevertheless left students befuddled after all that work. But I felt constrained because the troika is the most definitive statement of Ninth Circuit law, and it is insightful to see the cases evolve. Nevertheless, I decided that the Amazon case was the most doctrinally significant, so I kept that and ditched the other 2.

* Added Io v. Veoh. To make up for taking out the Perfect 10 cases, I've added this case, which I think is a very clear exposition of a DMCA online safe harbor case.

* Added Parker v. Yahoo. I think this will be a good case to tie together some copyright doctrinal threads as well as provide a nice compare/contrast with the Ticketmaster v. RMG case.

Trespass to Chattels

* Replaced the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act statute with the most recently amended version.

* Included a slide that synthesizes the various trespass to chattel doctrines into a summary format.

Contracts

* Added the Harris v. Blockbuster case. It's a short case that efficiently makes several powerful pedagogical points--including perhaps most importantly, the perils of robo-drafting by copying language from other people's agreements.

Blogs and Social Networking Sites

* Replaced my old materials on blog law and social networking sites law with my most recent talk on both from February.

* Added my Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism article

* Added the Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel case as an end-of-the-semester review case. As I said when I first blogged on the case, I think "this is one of the most interesting cases I've seen in a while," and I'm really excited about teaching it. I think it will be an excellent issue-spotting opportunity for students as well as a powerful reminder of the power of published words (and how those words can unintentionally affect the people we love).

Change to the Grading Options

My other big change this year is that I am giving students the option to write a wiki entry on a cyberlaw topic as part of their grade. This was inspired by my forthcoming paper on Wikipedia (which you'll hear more about soon). In connection with that paper, I was researching alternative labor sources that could power Wikipedia, and students working as part of a class assignment was one option I explore in the paper (with some reservations). As part of "eating my own dog food" (a terrible idiom that seems to be prevalent in the Silicon Valley), I figured I should give it a try myself. As you can see, the wiki-drafting is optional, not mandatory, so I'll be interested to see how many students choose the option. I'll also be interested to see what happens when the students actually try to submit their work to Wikipedia. I have a mental image of a massive buzzsaw, but perhaps I'm being too cynical.

Posted by Eric at 09:36 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Internet History , Licensing/Contracts , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

August 03, 2009

Google Goes on Offensive in AdWords Trademark Lawsuit--Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits

By Eric Goldman

Google, Inc v. John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC, C09 03459 (N.D. Cal. complaint filed July 27, 2009). [Warning: 1.4MB file] The Justia page.

A couple of interesting developments in John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google, the putative nationwide trademark owner class action lawsuit against Google over AdWords.

First, as of last week, the plaintiff had not served the complaint on Google even though it's been on file for over 2 months. I'm not sure what's the hold-up, but in my limited experience, delays in serving an already-filed complaint are often a leading indicator of a troubled lawsuit.

Second, last week Google sued the individual named plaintiff in that case, John Beck Amazing Profits, for both a declaratory judgment that AdWords doesn't infringe plus a breach of contract claim that the lawsuit filing breached the AdWords contract provision requiring any AdWords-related lawsuit to be brought in California. Going on the offensive against a plaintiff is characteristic of Google's litigation strategy; Google often tries to turn the tables on its litigation opponents. In this case, a major goal for Google surely is to get the case out of the Eastern District of Texas, which has been a dangerous venue for patent defendants.

Although the declaratory judgment and counterclaim is consistent with Google’s standard practices, in this case Google is ripping a page out of Yahoo's playbook in its litigation with American Airlines. American Airlines sued Yahoo over selling trademarked keywords in a Texas federal court; Yahoo shot back with a in a California federal court to try to get the case in a more favorable venue. The “dueling lawsuits” have led to an ongoing jurisdictional tussle that has slowed down progress on the substantive merits of American Airlines' claim.

As I wrote in connection with Yahoo's efforts, it was not clear to me that a defendant can wrest jurisdictional control of a case through the declaratory judgment process. In Google's situation, it's even more complicated because John Beck Amazing Profits is just the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs could easily replace John Beck Amazing Profits with another named plaintiff who isn't an AdWords advertiser and isn't subject to California jurisdiction. At that point, I'm not sure what happens to the class action. (And, even if Google succeeds in moving the nationwide case, it should have no bearing on the Firepond putative class action lawsuit, which only covers a class of Texas trademark owners). Moreover, even if Google wins the declaratory judgment, it would have no binding effect on other class members.

So other than a not-certain-to-work ploy to pull the nationwide class action out of a bad venue, the only other benefit I see from the litigation is to send a warning shot to any named plaintiff who might succeed John Beck Amazing Profits that Google will be coming after them too. Let's see how that message is received.

The current roster of pending AdWords cases:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google and now Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google
* Rosetta Stone v. Google

Posted by Eric at 03:51 PM | Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

July 31, 2009

Google Not Liable for False Ads--Goddard v. Google

By Eric Goldman

Goddard v. Google, Inc., 5:08-cv-02738-JF (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2009)

I previously blogged on this case in December 2008. The case involves AdWords advertisements for allegedly fraudulent mobile subscription services. In an underappreciated opinion, Judge Fogel wrote the smartest 47 USC 230 opinion of 2008 dismissing the case with leave to amend. In that ruling, he said that plaintiffs could state a valid claim if "Plaintiff could establish Google's involvement in 'creating or developing' the AdWords, either 'in whole or in part.'"

It was pretty clear then that further efforts would be a waste of time. I wrote "the writing is on the wall for this lawsuit. The plaintiff can't win, and it would be a mistake for the plaintiff to refile." But hope springs eternal among many plaintiff's lawyers, so naturally they tried anyway. Not surprisingly, their second attempt was futile, and Judge Fogel shuts the door by dismissing without leave to amend this time. Among other things, he is sensitive to the costs of fruitless litigation undercutting 230’s policy objectives. He writes "this Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff almost certainly will be unable to state a claim compels the additional conclusion that Google must be extricated from this lawsuit now lest the CDA’s ‘robust’ protections be eroded by further litigation." I hope other judges will embrace early ends to 230 cases for the same reason.

The Roommates.com Attack

To plead around 230, the plaintiffs allege that Google's keyword suggestion tool encourages advertisers to buy "free ringtone" as a keyword when advertisers are buying "ringtone." The plaintiffs then argue that Google should know that "free ringtone" is frequently used by shady players, and therefore suggesting the term to other advertisers kicks Google out of 230. This weak argument makes numerous unsupported inferences, and Judge Fogel easily rejects it. He says:

a plaintiff may not establish developer liability merely by alleging that the operator of a website should have known that the availability of certain tools might facilitate the posting of improper content. Substantially greater involvement is required, such as the situation in which the website “elicits the allegedly illegal content and makes aggressive use of it in conducting its business.” [cite to Roommates.com]

I'm not exactly sure what it means to make aggressive use of content, but I'm glad to see the Google's keyword suggestion tool isn't that.

The Barnes Attack

The plaintiffs also attack 230 using the promissory estoppel discussion from Barnes v. Yahoo. The basic argument is a familiar one in 230 jurisprudence. The plaintiffs allege that Google's AdWords contract had negative covenants restricting the advertisers' behavior, and this language in the Google-advertiser contract acted as a promise to consumers that the restricted advertiser behavior would not occur on Google's network. I have repeatedly criticized the illogic of these arguments, and fortunately it doesn't fly here. Judge Fogel guts it when he points out that "there is no allegation that Google ever promised Plaintiff or anyone else, in any form or manner, that it would enforce its Content Policy."

I'm sure we'll see many plaintiffs make this same bogus argument in future cases, and I hope other judges reach the same conclusion. At the same time, I think websites should prune their ever-expanding lists of negative behavioral covenants in their contracts to curb plaintiffs’ misdirected arguments and to avoid unintentionally criminalizing users (see the Lori Drew conviction).

Dismissal on 12(b)(6) Motion

A major gripe about the initial Ninth Circuit Barnes opinion was its loosely worded and poorly researched conclusion that 47 USC 230 was an affirmative defense that could not support a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that Judge Fogel shouldn’t dismiss the case now for that reason, even though the Ninth Circuit withdrew that portion of the opinion. Judge Fogel cites to several cases allowing a 47 USC 230 defense on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss before doing the same himself.

Posted by Eric at 10:59 AM | Derivative Liability , Marketing , Search Engines | TrackBack

July 30, 2009

Google Down to 7 AdWords Lawsuits--Ascentive v. Google Voluntarily Dismissed

By Eric Goldman

Ascentive v. Google, Inc., 2:09-cv-02871 (E.D. Pa. voluntary dismissal July 30, 2009)

The litigation count on Google's keyword ad lawsuits has started trending downward. For the second time in a week, a plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed its trademark lawsuit over Google AdWords. Last week Jurin dismissed his lawsuit voluntarily because he had a falling out with his attorney. Today Ascentive voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit, although I don't know why. (As usual, the filing is silent). You may recall that Ascentive's lawsuits raised some interesting issues about organic search in addition to the AdWords issues; apparently those will have to wait.

Ascentive's dismissal leaves 7 pending cases against Google over AdWords:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google
* Rosetta Stone v. Google

Posted by Eric at 02:07 PM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

July 23, 2009

Google Down to 8 AdWords Lawsuits--Jurin v. Google Voluntarily Dismissed

By Eric Goldman

Jurin v. Google, Inc., 2:09-cv-03934-GHK-E (C.D. Cal. voluntarily dismissed July 23, 2009)

Google's AdWords litigation docket has reversed direction, at least temporarily, as Jurin has voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit against Google. This dismissal came shortly after Jurin had a falling-out with his attorneys, which prompted his attorneys to ask to withdraw from the case. The voluntary dismissal means that Jurin is free to pursue his case elsewhere if he chooses, but I am fairly confident that this case won't be coming back.

Jurin's dismissal leaves 8 pending AdWords lawsuits against Google:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google
* Rosetta Stone v. Google

Posted by Eric at 07:47 PM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

July 21, 2009

Ripoff Report Hires New General Counsel

By Eric Goldman

I don't normally blog on personnel matters, but news about the Ripoff Report is a perennial favorite of blog readers. So I'm sharing the news that David S. Gingras has taken the mantle as the General Counsel at Ripoff Report. His law firm bio page and his LinkedIn page. Before David, the Ripoff Report's General Counsel was Thomas Duffy.

My impression is that, pound-for-pound, the Ripoff Report is probably involved in more litigation (mostly defense, but occasionally on offense (e.g., 1, 2)) than any other organization I track. Therefore, having David in-house should be very helpful to the organization. Fortunately, David is already very familiar with the Ripoff Report, as he previously worked at Jaburg & Wilk, an Arizona boutique law firm that handles a lot of Ripoff Report litigation, including several that David was personally involved with.

Coincidentally, I just blogged about joining a technology organization as its new General Counsel. Congratulations on the new gig, David, and best of luck!

Posted by Eric at 11:05 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

July 20, 2009

47 USC 230(c)(2) Talk Slides Draft--COMMENTS REQUESTED

By Eric Goldman

Later this week I'm giving a brand new talk on 47 USC 230(c)(2), the overlooked sibling of 47 USC 230(c)(1). With the help of a research assistant, we tried to identify and review every case referencing 47 USC 230(c)(2). I was surprised at how many cases cited 230(c)(2) (>30) and how few of them (<12) involved an actual holding turning on 230(c)(2) instead of discussing the provision in dicta or just citing it. I was also surprised at how little interpretative material discusses 230(c)(2) in any cogent way. The legislative history is useless, and the provision appears to have been virtually ignored in the law review literature--which itself is fascinating because 230(c)(2) is a really interesting and provocative doctrinal solution that warrants, at minimum, an appropriate theoretical justification (if one is possible). My talk is surely not the first to explore 230(c)(2) in a systematic way, but my research assistant and I really didn't find much to guide us.

That's where you come in. I've posted my draft slides. I would be very grateful if you could take a look and let me know what you think about my taxonomy of 230(c)(2) cases (and if you think I missed any cases) and my list of Constitutional and statutory substitutes. Also, if you are aware of any law review articles or other secondary materials that specifically discusses 230(c)(2) (and not just 230(c)(1) or 230 generally), I would appreciate the citation. For that matter, I would gratefully welcome all comments on the slides!

If I make any changes to my slides before I give the talk, I'll repost the "final" version of the slides by early next week to the same URL and announce the new version via Twitter.

Posted by Eric at 06:06 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

July 10, 2009

Ninth Lawsuit Against Google Over AdWords--Rosetta Stone v. Google

By Eric Goldman

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 1:09-cv-00736-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va. complaint filed July 10, 2009)

[Note: some of you may wonder how my litigation count reached #9 when my last blog post in this series was at #7. I subsequently realized that I had forgotten to include Ezzo v. Google, a doomed-to-failed pro se lawsuit filed pre-Rescuecom. Indeed, I remain unclear precisely how many lawsuits are pending; the number could be greater than 9].

Kudos to Rosetta Stone for its fine PR work. It was able to get a number of major media outlets to cover its lawsuit against Google alleging trademark infringement and related claims for Google's AdWords practices, even though by my count this is merely the 9th pending lawsuit and these lawsuits are becoming a near-daily routine.

Obviously, I'm suffering a little ennui on this topic. Another trademark owner doesn't like Google's AdWords practices and decided to sue in court. And in other breaking news, the sun rose in the east and set in the west today.

How routine has this become? Rosetta Stone's law firm is Gibson Dunn, which includes Terence Ross on the team. Terence lost some of the early WhenU keyword ad cases including the once-seminal 1-800 Contacts v. WhenU ruling. He also sued and procured a settlement from Google on behalf of American Airlines. Gibson Dunn's team also has a pending lawsuit against Yahoo on behalf of American Airlines. I haven't put all of Gibson Dunn's complaints side-by-side, but I have observed over the years that they have mastered the skill of cloning-and-revising--right down to recycling a stock phrase that might become Terence Ross' signature line (and perhaps his trademark some day?) that the plaintiff "does not bring this lawsuit lightly." (Para. 6 of the complaint; compare Para. 6 of the AA v. Google and AA v. Yahoo complaints). I'm glad Gibson Dunn's clients don't sue lightly. I wish all lawyers could say the same of their clients. Then again, at the lofty fees I suspect their clients are paying for the firm's services, this statement is probably the one assertion in the complaint that no one--not even Google or the judge--could possibly dispute.

As a partially cloned-and-revised complaint, it shouldn't surprise you that this complaint doesn't break much new ground. See my deconstruction of the American Airlines v. Google complaint--because many of the provisions were recycled, my commentary of that complaint applies almost in toto. However, a couple of small points that did jump out at me from this complaint:

* Rosetta Stone has some really, really weak trademarks. "Global Traveler"??? "Language Library"??? "The fastest way to learn a language. Guaranteed"??? Are you serious?

* Among the keyword advertisers that Rosetta Stone complains about are retailers who sell both Rosetta Stone and other language products. Whoa. I'll be interested to see how Rosetta Stone gets around the First Sale doctrine for those advertisers.

Two concluding thoughts

* Is it time for these 9+ lawsuits to be consolidated in a multi-district litigation yet? From my perspective, that seems inevitable, but I'm not much of an expert on the procedural aspects of MDLs.

* Any predictions on whether another trademark lawsuit over AdWords will be filed in the month of July?

The other eight lawsuits I'm tracking:

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google

Posted by Eric at 01:10 PM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

July 09, 2009

"Keyword Advertising Law" Talk (New and Improved!)

By Eric Goldman

I recently spoke on the state of keyword advertising law, which prompted me to rewrite my PowerPoint slides from scratch in light of the many recent developments. So, now available for your enjoyment:

* my talk slides
* an 80 minute free audio recording of my June presentation of this slide deck (plus Q&A) to the IAB Legal Affairs Committee. You can listen in QuickTime or download from iTunesU (for free; go to item 26)
* the CLE written material, a compilation of recent blog posts on the many lawsuits against Google and Google's two trademark policy changes. I would now add the Ezzo, Ascentive and Jurin cases to the written materials.

If this isn't enough for you, I am participating in two expensive (overpriced?) webinars on keyword advertising law in July:

* On July 10 (tomorrow!), "Keyword Advertising Do's and Don'ts," a 1 hour PLI webinar co-presented with Marty Schwimmer of the Trademark Blog.

* On July 22, "Trademark-Based Keyword Advertising: Potential Liability and Avenues for Relief," a 90 minute Pike & Fischer webinar co-presented with Rose Hagan of Google, Elisabeth Escobar of Marriott and John Slafsky of Wilson Sonsini.

Posted by Eric at 10:37 AM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

July 08, 2009

Mixed Ruling on Damages in Premier League v. YouTube

By Eric Goldman

The Football Association Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc., 07 Civ. 3592 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2009)

This is a ruling about potential damages in one of the copyright infringement lawsuits against YouTube. It's a pretty technical ruling interpreting some arcane aspects of copyright law, including the "live broadcast exception" in 17 USC 411(c) (which until a year ago was 411(b)). I'll confess that I had never given any thought to the 411(c) exception, and I don't even know who to call who is guaranteed to have expertise in it. (When in doubt, I always take my tough copyright questions to my colleague Tyler Ochoa). And like you, my eyes glaze over when I see "Berne" and "TRIPs" in a legal opinion.

The substantive rulings in the case can be understood even if 411(c), Berne and TRIPs all go over our collective heads. The court says:

1) Unregistered foreign copyrights are not eligible for statutory damages...
2) ...except for some broadcasts of live events if the copyright owner complies with some statutory formalities, including a requirement that the copyright owner send what is effectively a pre-event prospective "take-down" notice.
3) Punitive damages aren't available in copyright claims.

[Note: the ruling only addressed foreign copyrights, so potential damages on domestic copyrights are unaffected by this ruling. However, domestic works should follow an identical formula.]

#3 is not news; “no punitive damages” has been well-accepted copyright doctrine for as long as I can remember. #1 was perhaps a little more contestable as applied to foreign works but was also pretty well-accepted. #2 is new ground for me and probably for lots of other copyright lawyers who don't normally deal with copyrights in live events, but the result is fairly intuitive from a fresh reading of the statute. So although I'm not sure how often the precise issues have come up, overall this ruling seemed to be a fair and straightforward reading of the statute.

It's less straightforward declaring who "won" this ruling. Ignoring the claim for punitive damages, an argument which struck me as never having a chance in the first place, the ruling is a mixed bag for the parties--YouTube won #1 and the plaintiffs won #2. As a putative class action, though, #1 seems more important. Considering the overall class of copyrighted works potentially eligible for coverage under the class action, the court has said that some of those works are now eligible only for actual damages. My guess is that actual damages are less valuable than statutory damages for those works. The plaintiffs may be to show actual damages for some infringing YouTube clips, such as if the plaintiffs can establish a bona fide market rate for licensing short clips (a meaningful possibility in some cases). However, I think most works will have zero actual damages from YouTube infringements. If so, this ruling implicitly knocks most foreign unregistered copyrighted works out of the lawsuit.

YouTube still faces potential statutory damages for foreign live broadcasts that complied with the requisite formalities. The ruling cites a declaration by plaintiffs that there are at least 340 such works. While YouTube would have preferred to knock out statutory damages for all unregistered foreign works, I think this ruling should effectively reduce the parties' overall dollar value assessment of the case's worth. Unfortunately, I doubt the ruling reduces that dollar value enough to enable meaningful settlement discussions.

Posted by Eric at 07:51 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

July 07, 2009

June 2009 Quick Links, Part 2

By Eric Goldman

State Regulation of the Internet

* iAWFUL, the Internet Advocates Watchlist for Ugly Laws

* Texas HB 2003. Part of the anti-cyber-harassment mania. Very broad statute with lots of room for prosecutorial mischief.

* BNA (BNA subscription required): "State Legislatures Consider Criminal, Civil Restrictions on Ticket Purchasing Software": "At least six state legislative bodies are considering bills this session that would place restrictions on the use of “ticket bots.""

* Because states are embracing the Amazon affiliate tax, the online affiliate industry is shrinking as we speak (1, 2, 3). But in one of his rare good moves, Schwarzenegger has vetoed CA's attempt to impose the Amazon tax.

* Clive Thompson in Wired: "By severing the link between location and geography, the internet turned everything upside down. Now mobile phones are inverting everything again, in the other direction — because your location becomes most important thing about you. So how is the return of geography going to change our lives?" My previous commentary on geolocation and the law.

Blogs/Social Networking Sites

* Yath v. Fairview Clinic, 2009 WL 1751767 (Minn. App. Ct. June 23, 2009). Posting illegitimately obtained health information to a MySpace page qualified as “publicity” for purposes of an invasion of privacy claim. The court says: “Yath's private information was posted on a public MySpace.com webpage for anyone to view. This Internet communication is materially similar in nature to a newspaper publication or a radio broadcast because upon release it is available to the public at large.” As a result, the publication qualified as “publicity” even if the material was posted for less than 48 hours and the plaintiff could only prove that a small number of folks actually saw it. Compare the Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel case, where republication of information the plaintiff voluntarily published on her MySpace page could not support an invasion of privacy claim.

Nevertheless, the defendants were excused because they had not created the MySpace page, even though they had supplied the information republished on the MySpace page.

* Richerson v. Beckon. Ninth Circuit upheld reassignment of teacher-mentor based on negative blog comments. My blog post on the district court opinion.

* Kaufman v. Islamic Soc. of Arlington, -2009 WL 1815641 (Tex. App. Ct. June 25, 2009). An online-only journalist qualified as a "member of the electronic or print media" for purposes of an interlocutory appeal statute.

* After von Brunn committed his hate crime outside the US Holocaust Museum, a bunch of his digital trails went dark as websites newly realized his vitriol was posted there.

* If you're looking for a paper topic, here's one: the use of MySpace, Facebook and other social networking sites in family law disputes, especially over child custody. I'm seeing cases every week where social networking site postings are being introduced to corroborate or contradict testimony about a parent's fitness.

Security

* FTC v. Pricewert. The FTC takes down an allegedly rogue Internet access provider. To the extent that the IAP is engaged in criminal activities, no problem; but it's less clear to me if the FTC can get a civil injunction under its Sec. 5 authority to stop the IAP from serving its putatively illegal customers. Such an action could be preempted by 47 USC 230. The FTC, in its brief, says the IAP fits into a Roommates.com exception, an argument presumably bolstered by their 10th Circuit win in FTC v. Accusearch.

* Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 2009 WL 1794400 (W.D. Wash. June 23, 2009). This is a putative class action over Microsoft’s use of Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) to validate copies of Windows XP. In this ruling, Microsoft gets SJ on the claim alleging that the contract prevented Microsoft from doing WGA validation. Especially interesting is the court’s conclusion that IP addresses are not personally identifiable information.

* Microsoft v. Lam. Microsoft brings a lawsuit against alleged click fraudders who caused Microsoft to issue $1.5M in credits to advertisers. The NYT article.

* EFF on the most recent amendments to the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act.

Miscellaneous

* Expedia tagged for $184M in damages for improperly marking up its service fees.

* In re Jamster Mktg. Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43592 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2009). Wireless carriers aren’t liable under RICO and false advertising laws for various deceptive practices by wireless content providers.

* New unmeritorious patent lawsuit trend: lawsuits over patent markings for expired patents.

* NYT: Investing in Lawsuits, for a Share of the Awards

* Oddee: 15 geekiest license plates:

Posted by Eric at 09:18 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Licensing/Contracts , Marketing , Patents , Privacy/Security , Publicity/Privacy Rights , Search Engines | TrackBack

July 06, 2009

June 2009 Quick Links, Part 1

By Eric Goldman

Just a reminder that I post some items to Twitter that don’t make it into these monthly recaps. If you want even more, you can track a superset of my online activities at Friendfeed.

Search Engines

* All Things Digital had an interesting 3 part series on the role of humans in configuring Google's algorithms: Scott Huffman; Matt Cutts; Amit Singhal. My initial 2005 blog post on the topic.

* More evidence of the deleterious consequences of latency on users' enjoyment of search results pages.

* Google is stumping in favor of its book search settlement deal and putting on the "charm offensive."

* Wired on niche search engines competing around the edges of Google.

* Google has dropped its feature that allowed quoted sources to reply in Google News.

* First, kosher phones. Now, kosher search engines.

Trademark

* Wendy Davis on a trademark lawsuit against Craigslist for allegedly infringing ad copy supplied by one of its users.

* Rookie mistake: Tony LaRussa publicly announced a settlement deal in his trademark lawsuit against Twitter before the papers were signed. Guess what....NO DEAL! UPDATE: A deal was struck subsequently.

* Speaking of which...the WSJ on Twittersquatting.

* WSJ: Europe's High Court Tries On a Bunny Suit Made of Chocolate. The EU struggles with trademarkability of chocolate bunnies.

* Productive People, LLC v. Ives Design (D. Ariz. May 29, 2009). TRO against a domainer.

* Oddee: 10 of the Worst Restaurant Names ever.

Copyright

* Supreme Court declined certiorari in the Cartoon Network v. CSC case.

* Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 2009 WL 1873589 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2009). Usenet service provider committed (1) direct copyright infringement (because it “actively engaged in the process so as to satisfy the “volitional-conduct” requirement for direct infringement”) as well as contributory infringement, vicarious infringement and inducement of infringement. This case was colored by defendants’ evidence spoliation and the lack of a viable 512 defense; in situations like this, courts smack down defendants hard. The court’s analysis would be troubling for many online service providers if this case isn’t an outlier. Mike Masnick has more on the import (or lack thereof) of this case.

* Brave New Films 501(C)(4) v. Weiner, 2009 WL 1622385 (N.D. Cal. Jun 10, 2009). BNF was denied summary judgment on its declaratory judgment request because (a) Savage never threatened BNF directly, and (b) ORTN, which did threaten BNF directly, isn't the copyright owner. My previous coverage of this case.

User Agreements

* In the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corporation. The FTC busted Sears for installing tracking software/spyware, even though Sears (1) asked all users to expressly opt-in, (2) paid users $10 to install the software, and (3) made full disclosure of the thorough tracking function of the spyware in the user agreement, albeit late in the installation process and in a buried fashion.

* Universal Grading Service v. eBay Inc., No. 08-CV-3557 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2009). eBay venue selection clause upheld.

* McMillan v. Wells Fargo, 2009 WL 1686431 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009). Wells Fargo asks some customers to agree to four different documents with differing governing law/venue selection clauses, leading to massive judicial confusion about how to determine governing law and venue.

* I’m using EFF's new "TOSBack" tool to track changes to major online services' user agreements. For my commentary on an article by Becher/Zarsky predicting the development of tools like this, see my writeup.

Posted by Eric at 04:54 PM | Adware/Spyware , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Domain Names , Licensing/Contracts , Marketing , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

Seventh Lawsuit Over Google AdWords--Jurin v. Google

By Eric Goldman

Jurin v. Google, Inc., CV 09-03934 (C.D. Cal. complaint filed June 2, 2009)

Frankly, I don't know exactly how many lawsuits are pending against Google over its AdWords service. I know of seven, including this one, but I don't a high confidence that I've seen all of them. For example, I missed this lawsuit initially because PACER misidentified the defendant as Goggle, not Google. (PACER is notorious for sloppy typos). See the Justia page.

Even if the lawsuit count is currently "only" seven, Google is seeing plenty of litigation activity. Clearly, one or more factors have changed the plaintiffs' cost-benefit calculus sufficient to open the litigation floodgates. Now, I'm wondering when all of these lawsuits will be consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding...?

Substantively, this complaint isn't materially different from the others. The plaintiff owns a trademark in the term "Styrotrim" for building materials, competitors are buying the term for competitive keyword ads, and Google is suggesting the purchase through its keyword suggestion tool. As with most of the other lawsuits, the plaintiff also alleges consumer confusion about the distinction between sponsored links and organic search results. The plaintiff's press release.

The six other AdWords-related lawsuits I'm tracking. If you think I've missed any, I'd be grateful for the reference.

* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (this wasn't a trademark case last I checked)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google

UPDATE: As a good example of my imprecise counting, I had forgotten Ezzo v. Google, a doomed-to-fail pro se case filed before the Rescuecom case. So my count is now 8, not 7.

Posted by Eric at 09:06 AM | Derivative Liability , Marketing , Trademark | TrackBack

July 01, 2009

MySpace Wins Another 47 USC 230 Case Over Sexual Assaults of Users--Doe II v. MySpace

By Eric Goldman

Doe II v. MySpace, Inc., 2009 WL 1862779 (Cal. App. Ct. June 30, 2009)

Capping off a busy month for 47 USC 230 jurisprudence, MySpace has won another case over its role in facilitating sexual assaults of underaged female users. This victory follows the 2008 Fifth Circuit Doe v. MySpace case and Doe IX v. MySpace from May. (Note: although California is apparently lagging behind Texas in Doe complaints, this opinion consolidates 4 plaintiffs, including Julie Doe V). As with the previous lawsuits, this lawsuit is generally premised on MySpace's allegedly inadequate measures to protect its underaged users and use appropriate age-verification technology.

The court could have simply tossed the case by citing the Fifth Circuit opinion, which had already addressed and rejected these arguments. (I believe the plaintiffs’ attorneys are the same in both cases). As the court points out, the plaintiffs didn’t really try to work around the Fifth Circuit opinion: "Not surprisingly, appellants cannot and do not distinguish the Fifth Circuit's opinion…which is exactly on point. They only contend that the Fifth Circuit was wrong."

Nevertheless, after canvassing the federal precedent (all of which is adverse to the plaintiff), the court considers if California's 230 jurisprudence leads to a different result. The court cited three California cases that have used 230 to reject negligence claims against service providers (Barrett, Delfino, Gentry). The court then correctly concludes that plaintiffs seek to hold MySpace liable for user-to-user communications:

It is undeniable that appellants seek to hold MySpace responsible for the communications between the Julie Does and their assailants. At its core, appellants want MySpace to regulate what appears on its Web site.

That's precisely what 230 precludes plaintiffs from being able to do. The plaintiffs' attempt to focus on the offline physical harm doesn't change that analysis:

In all but one of these [precedent 230] cases, the harm actually resulted from conduct that occurred outside of the information exchanged, whether that information was actionable or not.

This is a crucial point that sometimes gets overlooked. The 1997 Zeran case involved online postings that led to offline harms--in that case, a high volume of angry telephone calls, including death threats. And Zeran was a negligence case, not a defamation case. So the MySpace cases, alleging the service provider was negligent in preventing offline harms, seem to be substantively indistinguishable from the Zeran precedent from a dozen years ago.

The plaintiffs also try a Roommates.com attack on 230, arguing that MySpace loses 230 protection because it helped users create profiles and structured the search of these profiles. Doe IX v. MySpace had already expressly addressed and rejected this argument. The court doesn't cite Doe IX (or any other cases interpreting Roommates.com, for that matter), but still rejects the argument:

Unlike the questions and answers in Roommates.com, however, Appellants do not allege that MySpace’s profile questions are discriminatory or otherwise illegal. Neither do they allege that MySpace requires its members to answer the profile questions as a condition of using the site.

The voluntariness of the profiles was the same ground relied upon in the Doe IX case. The lack of illegality in the questions is a new point.

So, yet again, Roommates.com is cited in a defense win. My updated scorecard on Roommates.com citations is 8-2 for the defense:

Roommates.com Cited for Defense: GW Equity v. Xcentric, Best Western v. Furber, Goddard v. Google, Joyner v. Lazzareschi, Atlantic Records v. Project Playlist, Barnes v. Yahoo (note: although the case was a partial loss for the defendant, the Roommates.com discussion came in the defense-favorable part), Doe IX v. MySpace and this opinion (Doe II v. MySpace)

Roommates.com Cited for Plaintiff: NPS v. StubHub, FTC v. Accusearch

Posted by Eric at 11:17 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 30, 2009

Roommates.com Infects the Tenth Circuit--FTC v. Accusearch

By Eric Goldman

F.T.C. v. Accusearch Inc., 2009 WL 1846344 (10th Cir. June 29, 2009). My blog post on the district court opinion.

Introduction

June has been an active month for 230 jurisprudence. Cases this month include Doe IX v. MySpace (actually a May opinion but I blogged it in June), Gibson v. Craigslist, the Barnes v. Yahoo amendment, and Zango v. Kaspersky--all defense-favorable outcomes. As I mentioned in my post on the Doe IX case, the Ninth Circuit Roommates.com en banc decision has not cast a long shadow on 230 jurisprudence; it has been cited less than 10 times in the past year, and prior to yesterday, only once in favor of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, those good times may be over. The Tenth Circuit has largely adopted the rule and reasoning of Roommates.com in FTC v. Accusearch, effectively making Roommates.com the governing law west of the Rockies.

The FTC's Enforcement Action Against Accusearch

This is a prime example of bad facts making bad law. Accusearch runs Abika.com, a website that tried to style itself as a matchmaker between customers seeking, and vendors selling, private/personal records about people. The specific records at issue here contain "customer proprietary network information" (CPNI), the metadata about telephone calls. CPNI resales were probably illegal at the relevant time periods; following the Hewlett-Packard pretexting scandals, Congress cleared up any confusion and criminalized the resale of CPNI via the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. §1039.

If Abika.com was structured as a pure advertising site to facilitate off-site transactions, like Craigslist or eBay, perhaps Abika.com would have a stronger case for qualifying for 47 USC 230 protection for the sale and delivery of CPNI reports from Abika's vendors to their customers. However, Abika.com apparently was structured as a classic retailer in that it advertised the third party reports, processed customer payments, and delivered the subsequent reports to customers as if the reports were its own (Abika.com even stripped out the third party vendor's identifying information). So the veneer of Abika.com simply being a passive intermediary between customers and vendors may have been overwhelmed by Abika's active and overwhelming presence in the transaction.

The FTC went after Accusearch claiming that Abika.com was engaged in "unfair" trade practices under the FTC Act. (Note: the FTC has the power to pursue unfair commercial practices, even when they are not deceptive. However, the standards for "unfair" are amorphous, making such enforcements potentially problematic and controversial. Fortunately, the FTC generally wields this power sparingly). Accusearch's principal defense was 47 USC 230 on the theory that Accusearch procures the CPNI reports from third party vendors and merely republishes the third party reports to Accusearch's customers.

It's really hard to defend CPNI resales, and the court says that Accusearch had the requisite scienter that such resales were illegal/impermissible. With the combination of scienter, illegal transactions, active intermediation and the FTC as a plaintiff, it really seemed to me that Accusearch had no chance of winning this case. But this combination also tempted the judges to use loose reasoning to reach that unavoidable result.

The Opinion’s Discussion of 47 USC 230

A defendant must establish three elements of a successful 230 defense, and the majority opinion muddles the discussion on all of them:

1) "provider or user of an interactive computer service." Based on the funky definition of ICS, the FTC argued that websites qualify for 230 protection only when they enable user-to-user communications. The majority declines to accept this argument but doesn't reject it outright either, basing its decision on another prong. Although the statute could be clearer (like, for example, saying that websites qualify for 230 protection), the caselaw is extremely thick that every website qualifies for 230 protection. Unfortunately, with the majority's pathetic response, I wouldn't be surprised if plaintiffs unnecessarily put this issue into play in future 10th circuit cases.

2) "publisher or speaker of content" The concurring judge argues for a speech/conduct distinction and argues that the FTC is pursuing Accusearch for its conduct, not its speech. The speech/conduct distinction is almost meaningless in this case given that Accusearch was reselling information, which means that Accusearch was electronically republishing that information. The majority disagrees with the speech/conduct distinction but otherwise doesn't discuss this prong.

3) "created or developed by another information content provider." Adopting the arguments from the Roommates.com case, the majority says that Accusearch didn't "create" the reports but it was "responsible" for "developing" the reports. To reach this conclusion, the majority defines "responsible" and "develop":

* citing old French, "develop" means to "unwrap." Huh? Thus, "when confidential telephone information was exposed to public view through Abika.com, that information was 'developed.'" Does this definition make "develop" a synonym for "publish"?

* the majority initially says when "responsible" doesn't mean: "to be 'responsible' for the development of offensive content, one must be more than a neutral conduit for that content." This reference to "neutral conduit" parallels the Roommates.com case, which used the term "neutral tools" five times but never defined the term once.

The majority then says "a service provider is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content only if it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." This phrasing allows the court to distinguish the old 10th Circuit Ben Ezra precedent, which absolved AOL of liability for republishing inaccurate stock quotes. There, AOL didn't ask its vendors to give it false reports; here, the majority says that Accusearch asked its vendors to get information it knew was illegal to obtain:

Accusearch solicited requests for such confidential information and then paid researchers to obtain it. It knowingly sought to transform virtually unknown information into a publicly available commodity. And as the district court found and the record shows, Accusearch knew that its researchers were obtaining the information through fraud or other illegality.

Implications

I doubt the literal holding of this case is all that troubling to most folks. If you're in the business of reselling illicit phone records and the FTC comes calling, 230 isn't likely to help you.

However, this opinion could be problematic for any online retailers who thought they could use 230 to insulate themselves. It's never been clear how much 230 protects online retailers when they are making sales for their own account (as opposed to advertising services like eBay or Craigslist), and this opinion raises the specter that 230 won't apply even when "retailing" involves republishing third party content. Indeed, the loose language means the case could be a major carveback of 230's coverage in the Tenth Circuit. As the concurrence points out, the majority's reading is "an unnecessary extension of the CDA’s terms 'responsible' and 'development,' thereby widening the scope of what constitutes an 'information content provider' with respect to particular information under the Act."

Then again, between its role as a retailer and the illicit nature of its goods, Accusearch was always at the periphery of 230's coverage. Today, 230 would be irrelevant if a federal government agency pursued a CPNI reseller under the new criminal provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 1039. So I think a better interpretation of this case is that where an online provider is dabbling too close to third party illegal activity, judges simply will ignore 230 as a bailout. Framed that way, this ruling is akin to Roommates.com, which was a largely a normative judgment by the Ninth Circuit that the Fair Housing Act should trump 230 regardless of 230’s precise statutory contours.

I'll conclude with a few more thoughts about the concurrence. Although the concurrence's proposal to distinguish between speech and conduct wasn’t a good one, there was a useful nugget embedded in it. To bypass 230, perhaps the case could have focused on first party content published by Accusearch--namely, copy written by Accusearch advertising the availability of CPNI records, including any express or implied statements that it was reselling legitimate records. I've repeatedly blogged on the challenges of first-party/third-party content distinctions in 230 (see, e.g., my recent discussion about 230 and consumer protection), but in this case, I think focusing on Accusearch's own representations may have led to a cleaner doctrinal result than the one we got.

Finally, in the concurrence's FN5, Judge Tymkovich says:

If Accusearch had run a traditional business out of a physical location and offered similar services, it would seem the FTC would have the same unfair business practices complaint. Nothing would immunize Accusearch’s conduct had it chosen to deliver the confidential telephone records to requesters through hard copy print-outs either in person or through the mail. Accusearch’s duty to refrain from engaging in the solicitation and distribution of unlawfully-obtained confidential telephone records should not depend on the medium within which it chooses to operate.

Uh, NO. As with some other bright judges dealing with 230 cases, Judge Tymkovich has fallen into the mental trap that smart common law judges applying their powers of reasoning can simply intuit what the law should be. Congress has made it abundantly clear that it did exactly what Judge Tymkovich rejects; via 230, Congress created medium-specific rules that make some activities online permissible even if their offline analogue would not be. As challenging as it may be, judges should resist the temptation to make these kinds of normative assumptions in the face of clear Congressional intent.

Posted by Eric at 10:28 AM | Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Privacy/Security | TrackBack

June 29, 2009

Sixth Lawsuit Filed Over Google AdWords, Plus an Assault on Google's Organic Search Results--Ascentive v. Google

By Eric Goldman

Ascentive, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2:09-cv-02871-JS (E.D. Pa. complaint filed June 25, 2009)

Guess who got sued again? Google now has 6 pending lawsuits challenging its AdWords service. The previous five are:

* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (this wasn't a trademark case last I checked)
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me

The latest lawsuit has a different spin than the others. Ascentive makes software that it claims will improve the speed of its users' computers and combat spyware. Earlier this year, Ascentive had a run-in with StopBadware, which initially labeled Ascentive as a scamware-like offering that hyped the threats on users' computers to induce them to pay to upgrade their Ascentive software. (See the initial StopBadware alerts 1, 2). StopBadware has since reached a compromise with Ascentive and repealed its warning, a move that appears to have been fairly unpopular in some segments of the security community. (This post gives a sense of the sentiments towards Ascentive and StopBadware).

Around the same time, the Ascentive-Google relationship deteriorated, which Ascentive speculated was due to StopBadware's classification (Google's correspondence just cryptically cited "multiple policy disapprovals"). After Ascentive had spent over $645k as an AdWords customer in 2008, Google kicked Ascentive out of the AdWords program. A week later, Google completely dropped Ascentive's website from its search index. As a result, Ascentive was frozen out of both Google's organic search results and sponsored links, and not surprisingly, Ascentive suffered a "severe drop in online sales" from this double-whammy. Ascentive's entreaties to Google were rebuffed.

Ascentive makes two broad legal attacks on Google. First, as has become typical, Ascentive alleges that Google commits trademark infringement and related torts by selling competitive ads keyed to its trademark and by suggesting that advertisers buy Ascentive's trademarks in Google's keyword suggestion tool. Among other specific issues, Ascentive complains that Google didn't respond to its trademark appearing as a third-level domain in a competitor's ad copy or the inclusion of "Finally Fast" in ad copy (Ascentive's applicable trademark is "FinallyFast.com"). Overall, these complaints don't break much new ground compared to prior allegations against Google's AdWords program.

Second, Ascentive alleges a variety of legal violations because Google kicked Ascentive out of its organic search results index. This is a bit like KinderStart redux. The allegation that really caught my attention starts in Para. 83, which reads "Google's refusal to list Ascentive's website in its natural search result listings violates the Lanham Act" as a false designation of origin. Whoa! The complaint doesn't explain this allegation thoroughly, but the theory seems to be that consumers expect to see the trademark owner in organic search results for the trademark and therefore consumers will be actionably confused if the trademark owner doesn't appear there.

Framed that way, of course we know such a claim is DOA. Indeed, as exciting as it would be to see some meaty discussion on the topic of Google's liability (or lack thereof) for deciding who gets into its search index, I'm guessing Google will beat this prong of the complaint quickly and completely. One way Google could get there is through 47 USC 230(c)(2) (which I just blogged about last week), which completely protects Google's ranking decisions as a subspecies of filtering choices generally. However, to get there, a court will have to conclude that a false designation of origin claim isn't an "IP claim" which is excluded from 230's coverage. If it doesn't want to reach that doctrinal issue, the court has a wide smörgåsbord of other doctrinal choices to squash this claim.

Posted by Eric at 07:32 AM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

June 26, 2009

Anti-Spyware Company Protected by 47 USC 230(c)(2)--Zango v. Kaspersky

By Eric Goldman

Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 2009 WL 1796746 (9th Cir. June 25, 2009)

The case involves Kaspersky, an anti-spyware software vendor, and Zango, the former purveyor of adware (I say "former" because Zango shut down a few months ago). Kaspersky classified Zango's software as adware and did some other things that allegedly interfered with Kaspersky users' ability to download and enjoy Zango software. Zango sued Kaspersky, and Kaspersky defended on 230(c)(2) grounds.

Note: 47 USC 230(c)(2) is the underlitigated/under-discussed sibling of 230(c)(1), which provides nearly absolute immunity for third party online content and actions.

In my opinion, 230(c)(2) fairly clearly protects all types of online filtering decisions, and this panel confirms that it protects anti-spyware classifications. As the court concludes:

a provider of access tools that filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable is protected from liability by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(B) for any action taken to make available to others the technical means to restrict access to that material.

While I think this is the right result, both normatively and descriptively, 230(c)(2) is not exactly the best-drafted statute, and this panel (being the first appellate court to work through the language) appeared to struggle with some of its frayed edges.

For example, to become eligible for 230 protection, the defendant must be a provider or user of a service that "provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server." [In this case, Kaspersky didn’t claim it was a user.] How does this language apply to an anti-spyware software provider? Typically, anti-spyware software phones home for new spyware definitions, but if a phone-home capability qualifies for 230 protection, then many/most software vendors should qualify (so long as they offer some filtering capability). I’m personally OK with that result, but I suspect it takes the statute beyond the drafters’ initial intent.

The panel also sidestepped some other drafting problems in 230(c)(2), including:

* does it immunize decisions to filter other software, as opposed to filtering content? The drafting clearly meant to immunize filters of porn and similar kid-unfriendly content, but the language doesn’t apply as clearly to software filtering.

* must the filtering provider make its categorizations in good faith? The court ducks this question. However, Judge Fisher’s concurrence expresses concern that 230(c)(2) might literally protect a vendor’s anti-competitive or capricious blocking. He gives an example of “a web browser configured by its provider to filter third-party search engine results so they would never yield websites critical of the browser company or favorable to its competitors. Such covert, anticompetitive blocking arguably fits into the statutory category of immune actions.” I agree with this, although I’m also confident that any such browser provider would lose its customer base if such biases were ever publicly exposed. Therefore, legal liability may not be necessary to discourage this behavior.

Ultimately, this ruling may not affect the litigants very much, as Zango has already gone belly-up, making this effectively an advisory opinion. However, I think this ruling is important for everyone else for two reasons:

First, the Ninth Circuit's last two 230 opinions (Roommates.com and Barnes) have exhibited some hostility to expansive 230 readings. In refreshing contrast, this opinion gives a robust interpretation to 230’s immunizations.

Second, this opinion is terrific news for vendors of anti-spam/anti-spyware/anti-virus services. Although we have long suspected that they would be protected under 230(c)(2), this opinion codifies their immunization as Ninth Circuit law. As a result, these vendors should continue to have a high degree of freedom to make judgments about how to best serve their customers. On the flip side, this opinion confirms that anyone blacklisted by these software vendors can’t use judicial proceedings to change the classification. Fortunately, most reputable vendors offer an extra-judicial mechanism to correct their misclassification errors.

It remains less clear if this opinion protects search engines for their ranking determinations. The statutory words interpreted in this opinion aren’t germane to search engines. Even so, the panel’s broad reading of 230(c)(2) can’t be bad news for the search engines.

The case library:

* Ninth Circuit oral arguments
* Zango's reply brief [warning: 3+ MB file]
* Amicus brief by CDT in favor of Kaspersky
* Kaspersky's answering brief [warning: 5MB file]
* National Business Coalition on E-Commerce and Privacy amicus brief in favor of Zango
* Zango's appeal brief [warning: 2.1MB file]
* The district court's dismissal and my commentary
* TRO Denial and my commentary
* Kaspersky's Response to TRO Motion
* Zango's TRO motion

Posted by Eric at 01:13 PM | Adware/Spyware , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 24, 2009

47 USC 230 and Consumer Protection Talk Notes

By Eric Goldman

Last week I made a very short presentation on 47 USC 230 and consumer protection at the ABA Antitrust Section’s Consumer Protection Conference. (I was scheduled for 6 minutes, but I think I took about 8). My talk notes:

47 USC 230 tries to divide online content into first party content and third party content. In its simplest form, 230 says that online actors can’t be liable for third party content unless (1) ECPA, (2) federal criminal enforcement, or (3) IP claims.

230 is the flagship example of cyberspace exceptionalism. As a result, its outcomes can challenge our traditional notions of tort law. This befuddles bright lawyers.

Despite 230, websites always remain liable for first party content.
* Ex 1: if they post their own content, they are liable
* Ex 2: if they make marketing representations, they are liable under standard doctrines like contract and false advertising law. Even so, some courts have been giving websites a pass for marketing representations which are rendered untrue by third party actions.
* Ex 3: Barnes v. Yahoo: website can by liable under promissory estoppel theory if it promises to remove third party content

Plaintiffs often try to argue that third party content becomes first party content.
* Ex 1: website contract may take ownership of user-supplied content
* Ex 2: SEC says that issuers endorse/adopt content that they link to
However, these arguments generally fail under 230. If content starts out as third party content, there is almost nothing the website can do that will convert the content into first party content. As a result, agency civil enforcement actions can unexpectedly run afoul of 230 when they collapse the distinctions between first party and third party content.

However, there is a possible workaround. In the Roommates.com case, the Ninth Circuit said that websites can lose their 230 protection in civil cases if they “encourage illegal content” or “require users to input illegal content.” The FTC is relying on this language in its recent Pricewert/3FN enforcement action against an Internet access provider who facilitated customers allegedly engaged in illegal activities. From my perspective, the Pricewert enforcement action could make sense in the following postures:
* if the FTC is bringing a criminal enforcement action, 230 is irrelevant
* if the FTC’s civil enforcement action is premised on Pricewert’s actual illegal behavior, 230 is irrelevant
* otherwise, if the civil enforcement action is premised on the illegal behavior of Pricewert’s customers, then this might fit into the Roommates.com exception if such an exception exists. However, I am troubled by such an exception, especially given that the enforcement action might also adversely affect Pricewert’s customers who only engaged in completely legal activity.

Two concluding observations:

1) 230’s basic division between first party content and third party content sounds great in theory but is tough to apply in practice.

2) In light of 230, enforcement agencies should rethink their expansive liability theories that basically assume that everyone should be responsible for a common set of online behavior (unless the agency is pursuing a criminal enforcement action).

Posted by Eric at 10:08 AM | Derivative Liability , Marketing | TrackBack

June 22, 2009

Ninth Circuit Helpfully Amends Barnes v. Yahoo Opinion

By Eric Goldman

Barnes v. Yahoo, Inc., 05-36189 (9th Cir. Amended Opinion June 22, 2009)

The Ninth Circuit has issued an amended opinion in last month's Barnes v. Yahoo opinion. The amended opinion makes two changes to the initial opinion, both of significant value.

First, the opinion deletes the entire old section II, a two paragraph section where the panel declared that, under Ninth Circuit law, 47 USC 230 is an affirmative defense that could not support a 12b6 motion to dismiss. That discussion was poorly researched, sloppy and completely gratuitous. Rather than try to fix the section, the panel wisely decided just to kill it. This still leaves open the possibility that a district court will reject a 230 defense to a 12b6 motion, although I think the better result is that 230 can support a 12b6 motion as the Gibson v. Craigslist case just held.

Second, the panel added a new footnote to its recap of the prima facie elements of a 47 USC 230 defense. You may recall that in my initial blog post, I excoriated the panel for saying, in plain language, that 47 USC 230 only applied to state law claims. To fix this obvious error, the panel added the following footnote:

"We limit our restatement of section 230(c)(1) to state law claims because we deal in this case with state law claims only. We have held that the Amendment’s protection also extends to federal law causes of action, see, e.g., Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (applying the Amendment to a cause of action under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.). Because no federal law cause of action is present in this case, we need not decide how or whether our discussion of section 230(c)(1) would change in the face of such a federal claim."

I don't know why the last sentence of the footnote is there. I guess this is super-CYA, but everyone knows that the 230(c)(1) analysis doesn't change one bit between federal and state law claims. Nevertheless, this footnote should eliminate any efforts by plaintiffs' lawyers to misuse the prior unnecessarily sloppy language.

Both of the changes in this amended opinion were directly responsive to the requests Yahoo and its amici made. I suspect both groups are pleased with these changes. I certainly am, although I remain disappointed that the entire exercise was necessitated by the panel's sloppy work up-front. Given that this is the second time in 2 years that the Ninth Circuit has had to fix badly drafted 47 USC 230 opinions, I remain (over?)optimistic that the Ninth Circuit will be more careful with its 230 jurisprudence in the future.

In conjunction with the amendments, the Ninth Circuit rejected both sides' request for an en banc hearing, although the amendments were so responsive to the defense requests that they largely mooted the defense's requests. (My intuition is that the plaintiffs never expected to get an en banc hearing but made their request just because Yahoo and the amicis had put an en banc hearing in play). I would be surprised if there are further appeals to the Supreme Court at this point. As a result, I believe this case is now effectively ready for further proceedings on remand on the promissory estoppel claim. Personally, from the limited material I've seen, Yahoo might find it prudent to cut short further proceedings and settle up rather than have its choices scrutinized too carefully. So I would not be surprised if this amended opinion prompts a settlement soon.

The case library:

* Amended Ninth Circuit Opinion
* Barnes' petition for rehearing
* Public Citizen et al amicus brief in support of rehearing
* Yahoo's petition for rehearing
* Ninth Circuit opinion and my blog post on it
* Ninth Circuit oral arguments
* District court opinion and my blog post on it
* Barnes' response to Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's brief in support of its motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's notice of removal to federal court (which contains Barnes' initial complaint)

The Justia page has even more materials from the district court proceedings.

Posted by Eric at 11:57 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 18, 2009

47 USC 230 Can Support 12b6 Motion to Dismiss-Gibson v. Craigslist

By Eric Goldman

Gibson v. Craigslist, 2009 WL 1704355 (SDNY June 15, 2009). The CMLP page. The Justia page.

In my lengthy deconstruction of the Barnes v. Yahoo case, I criticized the Ninth Circuit for concluding that 47 USC 230 was an affirmative defense (and thus could not support a 12b6 motion to dismiss) without proper briefing or analysis. First, this was sloppy work by the court. Second, the elimination of a 12b6 possibility for the defendants creates a real risk that defendants will be exposed to expensive and time-consuming discovery to eliminate plainly meritless cases. Yahoo and a group of amici have asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider this aspect of the ruling, and I hope they do so.

Meanwhile, today’s case does a competent job reviewing whether or not 47 USC 230 can support a 12b6 motion to dismiss. Unlike the Ninth Circuit, it actually cites and discusses the numerous cases in the area although, remarkably, it does not cite or address the Barnes v. Yahoo case…! The court reaches the sensible positions that (1) 47 USC 230 does support a 12b6 motion, (2) as a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery, and (3) the case should be dismissed. For more discussion on why 47 USC 230 supports a 12b6, see Paul Levy's excellent brief.

Substantively, today’s lawsuit is brought by a shooting victim who claims that the shooter bought the gun via Craigslist. The complaint argues that Craigslist had a duty to prevent the sale of guns to future criminals and therefore Craigslist breached the duty. This argument is similar to the Doe v. MySpace cases (1, 2) in which the plaintiffs argued that MySpace had a duty to police its website "premises" to prevent online communications that lead to offline crimes. The plaintiff's argument here fares no better here than it did in the MySpace cases. 47 USC 230 precludes the imposition of liability for any breach of duty by failing to police its users' communications (putting aside the also-relevant inquiry of whether Craigslist could have any duty that would have prevented this offline tragedy). The plaintiff tries to get around 230 by arguing it's just trying to hold Craigslist accountable as a "business" rather than as a speaker or publisher of third party content, but the court rejects this goofy argument as "unpersuasive."

More on the case from Eugene Volokh.

Posted by Eric at 06:41 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 11, 2009

Google Sued Again for Trademark Infringement--Soaring Helmet v. Leatherup.com

By Eric Goldman

Soaring Helmet Corp. v. Bill Me Inc., 2:2009cv00789 (W.D. Wash. complaint filed June 9, 2009). The Justia page.

It's clearly open season on trademark infringement lawsuits against Google. The latest is a lawsuit by Soaring Helmet, manufacturers of "Vega" helmets. This case is similar to the recent Hearts on Fire v. Blue Nile case in that the manufacturer (Hearts on Fire/Soaring Helmet) complained that a retailer (Blue Nile/Leatherup.com) purchased the manufacturer's trademark and said/implied in its ad copy that it sold the manufacturer's goods even though it allegedly didn't carry the manufacturer's goods at all.

The main difference between this lawsuit and the Hearts on Fire lawsuit is that the manufacturer also dragged Google into the lawsuit--even though Google treated Soaring Helmet's initial cease-and-desist letter as a trademark opt-out and blocked subsequent references to Vega in Leatherup.com's ad copy. Thus, unless Soaring Helmet seeks to reach back to the ads displayed before its C&D, it appears Soaring Helmet is trying to hold both Google and Leatherup.com liability simply for showing ads triggered by Soaring Helmet's "Vega" trademark.

For those of you keeping score, this is the fourth time in a month that trademark owners have sued Google over its AdWords programs. The other three are:

* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (this wasn't a trademark case last I checked)

A fifth pending AdWords trademark lawsuit is the Rescuecom case. I'm not aware of any others pending beyond these 5, but surely this action is making Google's outside counsel smile.

I note that the John Beck lawsuit is a putative class action covering all US trademark owners. I wonder if Google could consolidate this case with that...?

Posted by Eric at 07:16 AM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

June 09, 2009

May 2009 Quick Links Part 2

By Eric Goldman

Blogs and Boards

* WSJ: Bloggers, Beware: What You Write Can Get You Sued

* j2 Global Communications v. Zilker Ventures, CV 08-07470 SJO (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. April 22, 2009). A consumer review website can putatively qualify for anti-SLAPP protection, but not in this case because the plaintiff established its prima facie case.

* Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc. v. Bradbury, 2009 WL 1508703 (Cal. App. Ct. May 29, 2009). Here's another one for all of you Rip-off Report fans. A former employee lost a jury trial (and was hit with over $100,000 of damages) for breaching a "non-disparagement" clause in his separation agreement by posting negative comments about his former employer and colleagues on a variety of online fora, including numerous posts on the Rip-off Report.

* Houston Chronicle article on a lawsuit against a website operator for a user post saying that a woman has herpes when she, in fact, does have herpes. She is claiming public disclosure of private facts. [Stupid Houston Chronicle expired the article and moved it to its archives, breaking a number of links throughout the web. Here's a short recap of the article.]

* Stengle v. Office of Dispute Resolution, 2009 WL 1138119 (M.D. Pa. April 27, 2009). The contract of an independent contractor government "hearing officer" was non-renewed because she blogged on the topics of her hearings, raising questions about her impartiality. As the court says in dismissing the resulting lawsuit from the hearing officer:

To reiterate, this Court fully recognizes the cherished right of free speech, as well as the commendable goals of the RA. But these cannot wash away the bona fide concerns that arise when a judicial officer elects to disseminate her opinions in cyberspace with little or no restraint. Because of her position, Plaintiff's attempts to qualify her stances as solely her own were entirely ineffectual. With particular jobs come certain precise responsibilities. In Plaintiff's case, one of these included avoiding even the appearance of bias via extra-judicial comments. Plaintiff's deep concerns about the special education issues and the resulting creation of her blog ultimately caused her to face a dilemma that she alone created. The choices she freely made thereafter led to her non-renewal, and as aforestated we do not find any of the Defendants' conduct actionable under the circumstances.

This case reminded me some of Richerson v. Beckon from last year.

* JuicyCampus redux: People's Dirt. Let the angst over anonymous online forums begin anew.

* Doe v. Ciolli, 2009 WL 1204361 (D. Conn. April 30, 2009). In the AutoAdmit lawsuit, the court rejected Matthew Ryan's (aka ":D") motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

* Facebook v. Power Ventures, Inc., 2009 WL 1299698 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2009). Largely following the troublesome Ticketmaster v. RMG case, Power Ventures' motion to dismiss Facebook's copyright and DMCA claims was denied. (Other claims survived too). Comments from Jeff Neuburger and Tom O'Toole.

Miscellaneous

* Colleen Chien, Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 87, 2009

* Mazur v. eBay Inc., 2009 WL 1203937 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2009) Class certification denied. My blog post on this case’s more troubling ruling about 47 USC 230.

* Riggs v. MySpace, Inc., 2009 WL 1203365 (W.D. Pa. May 1, 2009). Venue selection clause in MySpace user agreement upheld.

* Salter v. State, 2009 WL 1409484 (Ind. App. Ct. May 20, 2009). Saving pornographic photos of a minor to a CD does not constitute the "creation" of child porn, even though a new "copy" has been created.

* State v. Bell, 2009 WL 1395857 (Ohio App. Ct. May 18, 2009). MySpace chat sessions aren't MySpace "business records" for hearsay purposes.

* Forbes: the Hidden Costs of Privacy. This article has been written, and written again, many times in the last decade; yet the regulatory dynamics have not improved.

Posted by Eric at 10:35 AM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Patents , Privacy/Security , Publicity/Privacy Rights | TrackBack

June 08, 2009

May 2009 Quick Links Part 1

By Eric Goldman

Just a reminder that I'm posting some quick links exclusively to my Twitter account.

Trademarks

* Texas International Property Associates v. Hoerbiger Holding AG, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40409 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2009). Domainer loses ACPA claim over typosquatted domain name. The PPC advertising constituted bad faith intent to profit. Ryan Gile recaps the action.

* GunBroker.com LLC v. Heckler & Koch Inc., No. 09-cv-00051 (M.D. Ga. complaint filed May 14, 2009). Interesting lawsuit by an online auction site for guns seeking a declaratory relief action against a trademark owner who deployed an enforcement agency, Continental Enterprises, to send a driftnet takedown letter that apparently targeted used gun resales or compatible goods. Ryan Gile has more.

* Miranda v. Guerroro, 2009 WL 1381250 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2009). Miranda is “Paola Morena,” a Latin singer. Her former manager convinced her to do some nude photo shoots in an effort to get a Playboy gig. The Playboy gig didn't materialize, and the manager stopped representing Miranda/Morena. After Morena's career took off, the manager then allegedly threatened to publicly post the photos unless she paid him $70k. Morena rebuffed the request, so the manager allegedly followed through with his threats by launching a website paolamorena.com [I got a nasty Google malware warning when I tried to visit the site], calling it her “official” site and posting some of the photos. The court enjoined the manager under trademark law. I'm a little confused how Morena had protectable trademark rights in her name. Did she make any use in commerce in the United States? Did her name achieve secondary meaning? This could be another case where trademark law is being stretched to stop bad behavior.

* Eric Menhart, the self-purported owner of a trademark in the term Cyberlaw, has gotten his very own personal gripe site.

Advertising and Marketing

* How much can Behavioral Targeting Help Online Advertising? HT Greg Linden

* Yingling v. eBay, 5:2009cv01733 (N.D. Cal. complaint filed April 21, 2009). A class action lawsuit alleging that eBay Motors overcharged merchants.

* IAB has issued its Click Measurement Guidelines designed to answer the Q “What is a Click?” See if their 28 page report actually answers the Q.

* A confusingly written LA Times article reports that 4 South Korean dissident bloggers are being criminally prosecuted for artificially inflating impression counts in order to game rankings of most popular pages.

* Perennially funny: unfortunate product names.

Copyright

* Solicitor General recommends against granting cert in Cartoon Network v. CSC.

* AV v. iParadigms, April 16, 2009. The Fourth Circuit says that the Turnitin system is fair use. My initial blog post on the district court ruling.

Security

* News.com: Interview with FBI cybercrime agent working undercover.

* Oddee: problematic CAPTCHAs. Funny.

Google

* Everyone wants to talk about whether Google is a monopolist
- In early May, I heard Susan Athey, Microsoft's Chief Economist, give a lunchtime attack speech on Google at a George Mason event
- Google is circulating a document explaining why it's good for competition
- Google is blanketing DC with lobbyists too.
- And Google says it's actually small potatoes.
- Wired: Will Wolfram Alpha forestall antitrust inquiry into Google? As I've argued before, we continue to see new entrants into the search business all the time—it’s just too big a market to ignore.
- NYT weighs in too. And the Washington Post discusses how Microsoft and others are complaining about how many Google folks are going into the Obama administration.

* Danny Sullivan: State Of Search: Google Will Stay Strong Despite Bing & Yahoo

* Wired: Secret of Googlenomics: Data-Fueled Recipe Brews Profitability

Posted by Eric at 04:03 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Licensing/Contracts , Marketing , Privacy/Security , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

June 01, 2009

Doe v. MySpace--Same Case Name, Different Plaintiff, Same Result

By Eric Goldman

Doe IX v. MySpace, Inc., 2009 WL 1457170 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2009). The Justia page.

This is yet another lawsuit involving an underage sexual assault where MySpace mediated some communications between abuser and victim. The flagship decision involving this fact pattern is Doe v. MySpace, a Fifth Circuit case granting an unambiguous win to MySpace per 47 USC 230. We're up to Doe IX v. MySpace, but the results are no different; and this case gets quickly tossed per 230 as well.

Knowing it had to overcome the 230 immunization, Doe IX tried two arguments. First, the plaintiff argues that MySpace had a duty to police its premises. However, this exact argument was addressed and soundly rejected by the Fifth Circuit, and it's easily dismissed.

Second, the plaintiff argued a Roommates.com-style attack, saying that MySpace was an information content provider because it allowed users to build a structured profile (and even converted user-supplied birthdays to corresponding zodiac symbols) and allowed other users to browse and search these profiles by defined attributes. The court rejects these arguments as well, construing Roommates.com as applicable only when the service provider mandates the completion of the profiles. MySpace made users' completion of the profiles voluntarily, thus (according to the court) rendering Roommates.com inapplicable.

As Tom O'Toole notes, this is yet another case where Roommates.com was cited in favor of the defendant. I think the citation count is even more stacked for the defendant than he indicates, though--I am aware of at least seven cases doing so, compared to only one case where Roommate.com was cited for the plaintiff. My census:

Roommates.com Cited for Defense: GW Equity v. Xcentric, Best Western v. Furber, Goddard v. Google, Joyner v. Lazzareschi, Atlantic Records v. Project Playlist, Barnes v. Yahoo (note: although the case was a partial loss for the defendant, the Roommates.com discussion came in the defense-favorable part) and this opinion

Roommates.com Cited for Plaintiff: NPS v. StubHub

Irrespective of the exact count, I fully agree with Tom's conclusion: "it's fair to say that while Roommates.com was a loss for one particular online publisher, it is causing very few problems for the rest of the Web."

Posted by Eric at 11:11 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

May 28, 2009

Contributory Cybersquatting and the Impending Demise of Domain Name Proxy Services?--Solid Host v. NameCheap

By Eric Goldman

Solid Host, NL v. NameCheap, Inc., 2:08-cv-05414-MMM-E (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2009)

Facts

This case involves an alleged domain name theft. Solid Host is a web host and initial owner of the domain name solidhost.com, which it registered through eNom in 2004. Solid Host claims that in 2008, a security breach at eNom allowed an unknown interloper (Doe) to steal the domain name and move the registration to NameCheap. Doe also acquired NameCheap's "WhoisGuard" service, a domain name proxy service that masked Doe's contact information in the Whois database. Solid Host contacted Doe and sought the domain name; Doe asked for $12,000, and Solid Host took a pass. Instead, Solid Host demanded that NameCheap hand back the domain name and identify Doe, but Doe claimed that he had bought the domain name legitimately. NameCheap, apparently feeling like the cheese in a sandwich, demurred to Solid Host's requests. Solid Host then got a TRO ordering NameCheap to transfer the name and reveal Doe's identity, both of which occurred. For unclear reasons, Solid Host hasn't amended the complaint to name the Doe, but it is proceeding against NameCheap on various claims, including an Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claim.

The Opinion

Who is the Registrant?

My understanding of domain name proxy services is that the service acts as the legal registrant, thus supplying its contact information, but it registers the domain name for the benefit of its customer, making the customer the beneficial registrant. An analogy: a bank may take legal title of a property as part of securing a loan on the property, but the borrower retains beneficial title to the property.

So, for purposes of the ACPA, is the proxy service the “registrant” of the domain name? ICANN’s agreement with registrars seemingly contemplates this characterization in Section 3.7.7.3 of its Registrar Agreement, which says “A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm.” However, it’s not clear to me that a proxy service “licenses” the domain name, especially if you accept my lender-borrower analogy above. Alternatively, if the proxy service is the “agent” of the customer, the licensing analogy also breaks down.

Whether the proxy service is the registrant matters a great deal to the legal outcome, and unfortunately, the court’s analysis of this important question was cursory, muddled, and possibly internally inconsistent.

In this case, the court’s inquiry is made more difficult by the fact that NameCheap acted as both the registrar and the proxy service provider. As a registrar, an ACPA claim against NameCheap should be squarely preempted by the domain name registry/registrar safe harbor enacted as part of the ACPA (15 U.S.C. §1114(2)(D)). For example, 1114(2)(D)(iii) says:

A domain name registrar, a domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority shall not be liable for damages under this section for the registration or maintenance of a domain name for another absent a showing of bad faith intent to profit from such registration or maintenance of the domain name

(This provision only moots damages, not an injunction, but since Solid Host has the domain name back in its possession, damages seem like the only remaining issue).

The court concludes that NameCheap is not eligible for the domain name registrar safe harbor because NameCheap is the domain name registrant. It says, "NameCheap is, by virtue of the anonymity service it provides, the registrant of a domain name that allegedly infringes Sold [sic] Host’s trademark." Thus, NameCheap is ineligible for the registrar safe harbor, which applies only when the registrar acts as a registrar.

But, having rejected the domain name registrar safe harbor because NameCheap was the domain name registrant, the court then inconsistently says that NameCheap is not the registrant for purposes of the prima facie ACPA claim. Instead, for ACPA purposes the court treats Doe as the registrant, leaving NameCheap exposed to a possible secondary ACPA liability claim. (The court acknowledges that NameCheap would defeat a direct ACPA claim because NameCheap did not have any bad faith intent to profit from the domain name. Offering the proxy service wasn't enough to qualify as a bad faith intent to profit).

Wait a minute—how can NameCheap simultaneously be both the registrant (no safe harbor) but not the registrant (thus, subjected to a secondary claim)? The court does not acknowledge or explain this apparent inconsistency.

Contributory Cybersquatting

Courts have rarely discussed a contributory ACPA claim. The only one cited by the court was a 2001 case (the Ford Motors vs. Greatdomains.com case) and I can’t think of any others. Perhaps this isn’t surprising because (1) as the Greatdomains.com case indicated, a contributory ACPA claim is available "in only exceptional circumstances," and (2) registrars are the most likely targets of a contributory ACPA claim, and the domain name registrar safe harbor effectively eliminates their contributory ACPA liability.

Adopting the analysis in the Greatdomains.com case, this court equates contributory ACPA liability with the Ninth Circuit’s 1999 Lockheed standard for online contributory trademark infringement (as opposed to ACPA liability), which requires that "a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had knowledge and ‘[d]irect control and monitoring of the instrumentality used by the third party to infringe the plaintiff’s mark.'"

So how did NameCheap have the requisite control over Doe's instrumentalities? Good question. The court tosses out this gem: NameCheap was "the “cyber-landlord” of the internet real estate stolen by Doe." WHAT??? The court continues:

NameCheap’s anonymity service was central to Doe’s cybersquatting scheme. If NameCheap had returned the domain name to Solid Host, Doe’s illegal activity would have ceased.

The second sentence is true with respect to NameCheap, but it is also true of every registrar for every domain name they register--and we know from the 1999 Lockheed case that registrars lack control over the instrumentalities of their registrants. So the proxy service seems to make a legal difference, but how does the proxy service evidence NameCheap's greater control over the registrant's instrumentalities? I think something is amiss here.

To complete the prima facie contributory ACPA claim, in addition to control, Solid Host must show that NameCheap has the requisite knowledge of Doe's ACPA violation. The court sets a high scienter bar--mere notice from an aggrieved party isn't enough--but the court conclusorily says that the complaint alleged enough knowledge to survive the motion to dismiss.

Why This is a Troubling Ruling

As I trust is clear, I think the court's analysis is questionable at best. I’m also troubled about the normative implications. Most obviously, this case could portend the demise of domain name proxy services. Read literally, every proxy service is exposed to potential contributory ACPA liability for every domain name it services. I can’t imagine proxy service providers will be excited about that liability exposure, and some may choose to exit the business.

If proxy services evaporate, domain name registrants will have a tougher time maintaining their privacy. This could affect at least two groups. First, businesses seeking to register domain names for unlaunched new brands often want to procure the new brand's domain names without publicly announcing their intentions through the Whois database. (Of course, some businesses register such domain name through agents or shell companies, but at a much greater expense than a proxy service). Second, gripers, whistleblowers, critics and others may want to use proxy services to make it harder for their targets to unmask their identities. This ruling jeopardizes the potential privacy options available to both groups.

I’m also troubled by this ruling’s narrow reading of the domain name registrar safe harbors. There haven’t been many cases interpreting those safe harbors, and this case might influence other courts to read them narrowly.

A Mini-Trend of Lawsuits Against Registrars

I’ve noticed a small but troubling increase in lawsuits against domain name registrars in the past few months. In addition to this case, see the Vulcan Golf v. Google lawsuit (which named some registrars as defendants), OnlineNIC cases, Philbrick v. eNom and uBid v. GoDaddy. Personally, I believe this litigation trend mirrors the expansion of new and legally untested non-registration services offered by registrars. I explored this issue with Elliot Noss of Tucows in the most recent installment of TWiL (worth listening to, IMO). Discussing the uBid lawsuit, Elliott explained how registrars monetize dropped domain names before being returned to the available pool of unregistered domain names. The delay is putatively for the benefit of customers who mistakenly let a registration lapse; but this also has the happy (?) by-product of letting registrars create new ad inventory that they are monetizing.

In the past, a lot of the legal attention regarding domain names has focused on trademark owners vs. registrants. From my perspective, those lawsuits are becoming passé. The real litigation growth industry appears to be trademark owner vs. registrar lawsuits over new registrar service offerings that trademark owners don't like. Rulings like this one, with a broad reading of contributory ACPA liability and a narrow reading of the domain name registrar safe harbor, raise the specter that registrars may find more legal trouble than they anticipated.

UPDATE: Commentary from Domain Name News

UPDATE 2: A call for registrars to exit the domain name proxy business.

Posted by Eric at 03:27 PM | Derivative Liability , Domain Names , Privacy/Security , Trademark | TrackBack

May 27, 2009

Barnes Also Seeks Rehearing in Barnes v. Yahoo

By Eric Goldman

Cecilia Barnes has also filed a brief requesting a rehearing in Barnes v. Yahoo. The brief says it's seeking rehearing on a single issue, although it doesn't actually summarize that issue in a single sentence. However, the brief at the end says it wants the court to "conclude that once Yahoo! had voluntarily assumed a publisher’s responsibility to remove the postings, the responsibility is enforceable by any lawfully applicable remedy." The brief describes that Yahoo's voluntary promise to take down the content should give rise to tort liability in addition to the promissory estoppel claim.

The brief is short. It's also remarkable as the first appellate brief I can recall seeing where the "discussion" section has zero citations.

The case library:

* Barnes' petition for rehearing
* Public Citizen et al amicus brief in support of rehearing
* Yahoo's petition for rehearing
* Ninth Circuit opinion and my blog post on it
* Ninth Circuit oral arguments
* District court opinion and my blog post on it
* Barnes' response to Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's brief in support of its motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's notice of removal to federal court (which contains Barnes' initial complaint)

The Justia page has even more materials from the district court proceedings.

Posted by Eric at 07:42 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

May 26, 2009

Speth on Barnes v. Yahoo and 230 as an Affirmative Defense

By Eric Goldman

I've already blogged a couple times on the Ninth Circuit's Barnes v. Yahoo ruling (commentary post; post on rehearing request). In response, I got an email from Maria Crimi Speth of Jaburg & Wilk in Phoenix, AZ. Maria has appeared in this blog before and is well-known as outside counsel to the Rip-off Report, which has appeared in this blog more times than I can remember. With her permission, I'm sharing Maria's email:
_______

As the attorney who may hold the record for 12(b)(6) motions on the CDA, I would like to address that portion of the opinion. Your analysis discusses the procedural change inherent in finding that a 12(b)(6) motion is not the appropriate vehicle. I agree completely, but the harm goes further.

The Ninth Circuit has now unequivocally referred to 230 as an affirmative defense. I believe that is wrong. I have been taken the position in my pleadings that it is not an affirmative defense; it addresses the prima facie case. I avoid referring to 230 in my motions as an affirmative defense and I plead 230 in my answers as a failure to state a claim rather than an affirmative defense.

The reason: If I ever have to take one of these to trial, the plaintiff should have the burden of proving that my client is an information content provider of the content at issue. I should not have to prove the negative. Especially in light of the author's right to anonymous free speech, it can be very difficult to prove that your client did not write something when the real author is anonymous.

The reasoning: 230 provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provider by another information content provider." The plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of its claim. In defamation, for example, the plaintiff generally must prove the following elements: a defamatory statement; published to third parties; and which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false. Thus, the Plaintiff must prove that my client was the speaker or publisher of the false statement. 230 further defines that element of the claim and provides that the Plaintiff can only prove that element if they can show that my client is the actual information content provider. "A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense." See Flav-O-Rich v. Rawson Food Service, Inc. (In re Rawson Food Service, Inc.), 846 F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir.1988) (recognizing that a defense which points out a defect in the plaintiff's prima facie case is not an affirmative defense); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002).
_______

This is an excellent point, and one that I had not focused on previously. I know I've seen other courts refer to 230 as an affirmative defense, but I can't recall any meaningful judicial explication of that characterization. In this case, I'm sure the panel tossed off the characterization breezily, but this is another gratuitous aspect of the opinion that the panel needs to defend or, better yet, correct.

Posted by Eric at 02:16 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

May 22, 2009

Yahoo and Amici Seek Rehearing in Barnes v. Yahoo

By Eric Goldman

Last week I ruminated at length (3,200 words!) about the Ninth Circuit's Barnes v. Yahoo opinion. As you may recall, I thought the court's actual holding--230 preempted a negligence claim but did not preempt a promissory estoppel claim--was mostly correct, although I worry about the normative implications of a promissory estoppel bypass to the 230 immunity. However, I complained loudly about the sloppy drafting and loose reasoning used by the opinion to reach the right result, and I speculated this would be a good case for rehearing by the panel or en banc.

Fortunately, Yahoo has requested such a rehearing. Plus, a coalition of public interest groups led by Public Citizen (and including CDT, CMLP and EFF) have filed an amicus brief in support of Yahoo's request (see Paul Levy's post). Both briefs focus on the two most egregious mistakes by the court:

* the sloppy dicta that 230 does not support a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and
* the even sloppier misstatement of the 230 prima facie defense to say that it only applied to state law claims, not federal claims.

Let's hope the judges grant the rehearing and, at minimum, clean up those two points. Kudos to the Yahoo and amici teams for pushing these issues.

The case library:

* Public Citizen et al amicus brief in support of rehearing
* Yahoo petition for rehearing
* Ninth Circuit opinion and my blog post on it
* Ninth Circuit oral arguments
* District court opinion and my blog post on it
* Barnes' response to Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's brief in support of its motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's motion to dismiss
* Yahoo's notice of removal to federal court (which contains Barnes' initial complaint)