Ninth Circuit Does More Ninth Circuit Things in its Latest Section 230 Ruling–Diep v. Apple
Yet another cryptocurrency fraud case. 🙄 I previously described this case: This lawsuit relates to the “Toast Plus” app that was available in Apple’s app store. The plaintiffs claim it was a spoof app designed to steal cryptocurrency worth $5k…
Section 230 Applies to Claims Over Hijacked Accounts (Except Maybe Verified Accounts)–Wozniak v. YouTube
More Bitcoin litigation 🙄. This time, malefactors hijacked popular YouTube channels and uploaded videos promoting Bitcoin scams: First, scammers will breach YouTube’s security to unlawfully gain access to verified and popular YouTube channels with tens or hundreds of thousands of…
“Ringless Voicemail” Vendor Wins Section 230 Defense Against FTC–US v. Stratics Networks
[This is one of those opinions that is a slog to blog because the court’s statutory analysis made my head hurt. If this opinion confuses you, welcome to the club. FWIW, “Slog to Blog” would make a good band name.]…
Plaintiffs Tried to Plead Around Section 230. It Didn’t Work–Ziencik v. Snap
I previously summarized this case: This case involves two Snapchat users who repeatedly received threatening messages from other Snapchat users despite the victims’ efforts to block the perpetrators. A victim flagged messages for Snapchat, allegedly to no effect, and law…
2023 Quick Links: Leftovers
Consumer Reviews * Route App, Inc. v. Heuberger, 2023 WL 5334192 (D. Utah Aug. 18, 2023): Heuberger argues that Route’s Breach of Contract claim fails because the non-disparagement provision in the Terms is unenforceable under the Consumer Review Fairness Act (“CRFA”)…
2023 Internet Law Year-in-Review
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Regulators have sought to suppress online targeted advertising for years, with only minimal success. Then, in Liapes v. Facebook, a California appeals court…
Web Page Framing Isn’t Trespass to Chattels–Best Carpet Values v. Google
This case is an old-school turn-of-the-century throwback (and not the good kind). Google’s search app framed the web pages users visit, and the frame included ads. Some screenshots depicting the framing (the first image shows Google’s superimposed frame on the…
Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula
This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that…
2023 Quick Links: IP, Keyword Ads
* For over a decade, I’ve implored people to stop using the term “Soft IP.” Amanda Levendowski now provides another reason: the term has problematic gender implications. * After II Movie, LLC v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC, 2023 WL 1422808…
Advertiser Can’t Force Facebook to Run Sex Product Ads–Strachan v. Facebook
Strachan created various Facebook pages and an advertising account. “In April 2020, Facebook cancelled Strachan’s advertising account and removed his advertising content from the platform.” Allegedly, Facebook “determined he was selling ‘Adult Services and/or Products,’ i.e., ‘sex products.’” To make…