Section 230 Applies to Tweeted Links to Defamatory Content–Coomer v. Donald J. Trump for President
…Roca v. PissedConsumer decision, unfortunately not cited by the court. However, the court equated Donald’s non-reference to the defamation and Eric’s repeating of the defamatory claim without justifying that equation….
Yearbook Defendants Lose Two More Section 230 Rulings
…Section 230-protected services do. Section 230 applies when a service generates teaser promotional content from UGC. See, e.g., Roca Labs v. PissedConsumer (“tweeting a ‘teaser’ or preview of posts do…
Website Denied Section 230 for No Good Reason, Wins the Case Anyways–DF Pace v. Baker-White
…own words. See, e.g., Milo v. Martin. The “Ripoff Report” and “PissedConsumer” cases are also highly relevant here, because both of those sites ensure a negative context for the third-party…
When Do Review Websites Commit Extortion?–Icon Health v. ConsumerAffairs
…design and operation of the website.” The court’s approach also implicitly conflicts with the many Ripoff Report and PissedConsumer rulings that addressed the review sites’ implementation. Despite this troubling discussion…
Search Engine Snippets Protected By Section 230–O’Kroley v. Fastcase
…eBay; Kimzey v. Yelp); and it would have gone further than PissedConsumer’s excerpting of consumer reviews and dissemination of those excerpts via Twitter. This would be because Google would have…
Review Website Gets Hammered In Court–Consumer Cellular v. ConsumerAffairs
…v. PissedConsumer. The Roca Labs v. PissedConsumer case went further and applied Section 230 to other types of remixing and abstractions of user content. So here’s my main problem with…
Second Circuit Muddies The Trademark Nominative Use Doctrine–ISC2 v. Security University
…Trademark Workaround to 47 USC 230 Immunity Fails Badly—Ascentive v. PissedConsumer * Newspaper’s Discussion About Trademark Owner Protected as Nominative Use–1 800 GET THIN v. Hiltzik * Funky Ninth Circuit…
Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Summaries of Third Party Remarks–Diamond Ranch Academy v. Filer
…the Roca Labs v. Consumer Opinion Corp. ruling, where Section 230 applied when PissedConsumer tweeted quoted excerpts from third party reviews. Would this court accept Section 230 when user comments…
No Fee Shift In Bogus Lawsuit Against Review Website–Roca v. PissedConsumer
…unfair competition based on negative consumer reviews submitted to PissedConsumer. Fortunately, PissedConsumer got a clean sweep on Section 230 grounds: Tweeting Excerpts. PissedConsumer tweeted excerpts of users’ posts. The tweets…
Google Isn’t Liable For Including Unlicensed Locksmiths in Directories–Baldino’s Lock v. Google
…for 5 months. The plaintiff’s real target was the negative coverage of it on PissedConsumer and Scam.com, but it sued Google under Alabama’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act for indexing the…