Snapchat’s “speed filter” allows users to overlay their speed on their content. Unsurprisingly, some users viewed this as a challenge to capture a high speed on their speed filter; and in the course of doing so, tragedy could occur. In…
[IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE!] This is one of two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s anti-Section 230 executive order from May. Because the EO said a lot (mostly lies) but did very little, the…
[VOTE EARLY AND IN-PERSON OR VIA OFFICIAL DROPOFF BOXES. DON’T RELY ON THE USPS TO DELIVER THE MAIL ON TIME!] The plaintiff sells “Pop N Go” playpens. Allegedly, up to 98% of the plaintiff’s revenues come from Facebook and Instagram….
I blogged earlier this summer about McGucken v. Newsweek, a case that involved a media defendant who was sued by a photographer because it embedded (and displayed) photos in an online article. Newsweek asked the court to reconsider its ruling…
Jones had a Twitter account @aboxoffrogs. Twitter permanently suspended the account for hateful conduct. Jones sued Twitter (pro se) for (1) defamation, (2) tortious interference, (3) aiding and abetting, (4) conspiracy, (5) ratification, (6) retraction, (7) violation of Section 230(c),…
I’m excited to announce that Rebecca Tushnet and I are co-editing a new SSRN eJournal, the “Advertising & Marketing Law eJournal” (official SSRN announcement below). If you are uploading scholarly works to SSRN on these topics, add your work to…
Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a plaintiff could plead around Section 230(c)(2)(B), the safe harbor for providing filtering instructions, by claiming that the filtering was motivated by anticompetitive animus. Last week, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. This isn’t…
Sid Avery photographed celebrities in the 1950s-1970s. At issue are six of his photos, all governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. Pixels[.]com is a print-on-demand vendor. Like Redbubble, it functions primarily as a marketing front-end; it outsources all manufacturing to…
This is a junk fax case. Plaintiff (Daisy), a corporation, used Vonage to receive faxes. It received a junk fax, but rather than receiving it on its fax machine, Daisy received the fax via email, as a .pdf. Daisy alleged…
[I published this op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday] Most voters initially are inclined to support Prop. 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). Everyone wants more privacy. But that initial support dissolves after careful scrutiny. Prop. 24 does…