<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Another Must-Carry Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails&#8211;Daniels v Alphabet	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/04/another-must-carry-lawsuit-against-youtube-fails-daniels-v-alphabet.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/04/another-must-carry-lawsuit-against-youtube-fails-daniels-v-alphabet.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2021 15:04:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Section 230 Preempts Contract Breach Claims-Morton v. Twitter - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/04/another-must-carry-lawsuit-against-youtube-fails-daniels-v-alphabet.htm#comment-2961</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Section 230 Preempts Contract Breach Claims-Morton v. Twitter - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2021 15:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=22490#comment-2961</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] support a motion to dismiss contract breach claims. That&#8217;s why the contract/230 discussion in Daniels v. Alphabet was [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] support a motion to dismiss contract breach claims. That&#8217;s why the contract/230 discussion in Daniels v. Alphabet was [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
