The California Supreme Court Didn’t Ruin Section 230 (Today)–Hassell v. Bird
I previously described the case facts: “A lawyer was unhappy with a Yelp review about her. The lawyer sued the putative author (with dubious service of process), got a default ruling that the review was defamatory along with a removal…
Q2 2018 Quick Links, Part 1 (Trademarks and Other IP)
Trademark * Carter v. Oath Holdings, 17-cv-07086-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2018) Courts have held that an online provider does not “use” a mark under the meaning of the Lanham Act when its search engine returns a search result based…
The “CREEPER Act” Would Be Yet Another Unconstitutional Law from Congress (Guest Blog Post)
by guest blogger Alex F. Levy On June 13, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed legislation targeted at so-called “child sex dolls.” The Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) Act would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1462 (which currently restricts…
A Privacy Bomb Is About to Be Dropped on the California Economy and the Global Internet
[Update: the law passed and I’ve posted a 3k word primer about it] By tomorrow, the California legislature likely will pass a sweeping, lengthy, overly-complicated, and poorly-constructed privacy law that will have ripple effects throughout the world. While not quite…
Challenge to Santa Monica’s “Anti-Airbnb” Law Dismissed–Homeaway v. Santa Monica
Numerous cities have passed “anti-Airbnb” laws, including Santa Monica. Santa Monica’s regulation, like San Francisco’s, regulated the provision of “booking services” to unlicensed vendors. Airbnb and HomeAway challenged Santa Monica’s regulation. In March, citing the Airbnb v. SF ruling, the…
Catching Up on FOSTA Since Its Enactment (A Linkwrap)
Some links of note about what’s happened since the enactment of the Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA: * ReplyAll podcast on the Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’s harmful effects on sex workers. One sex worker reports she knows of 13…
Twitter Isn’t a Shopping Mall for First Amendment Purposes (Duh)–Johnson v. Twitter
Multitudinous lawsuits–mostly by political “conservatives”–seek to deprive social media services of their property rights to exclude unwanted customers. Or, more precisely, these lawsuits seek to censoriously restrict the social media services’ First Amendment-protected right to free speech/press by forcing them…
Snapchat’s Speed Filter Not Protected by Section 230–Maynard v. Snapchat
Christal McGee allegedly drove recklessly (over 100 mph) to capture her accomplishment in Snapchat’s speed filter. McGee’s car hit Maynard’s car and caused permanent brain damage to someone in the car. The Maynards sued Snapchat, alleging “Snapchat knew that its…
Viacom Possesses Trademark Rights in ‘Krusty Krab’ Based on Its Central Role in the SpongeBob Universe–Viacom v. IJR (Guest Blog Post)
by guest blogger Alexandra Jane Roberts In 2014, IJR Capital Investments applied to register THE KRUSTY KRAB as a trademark for restaurant services based on an intent to use the mark in the future. IJR’s Javier Ramos claims the name…
Lawsuit Over Cancer-Curing Honey Ads Still Sucks–Abid v. Google
Abid markets cancer-curing honey. He bought AdWords to promote his MightyHoney website. Google rejected the ads. He sued Google pro se for a variety of claims. The court previously granted Google’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. My prior…