Does California’s Anti-Discrimination Law Ban Ad Targeting?–Liapes v. Facebook
This opinion indicates that Facebook–and by implication, every other ad network–could violate California’s Unruh Act (an anti-discrimination law) by targeting third-party ads based on age, gender, or other protected criteria. The court reaches this shocking conclusion by cutting several analytical…
VRBO Qualifies for Section 230–Wiener v. Miller
This lawsuit involves a tragic and deadly fire at a VRBO rental. The court dismisses VRBO from the resulting lawsuit on Section 230 and other grounds. That conclusion would have been unremarkable except that the Ninth Circuit held that VRBO…
Laura Loomer Loses Litigation (Again)–Loomer v. Zuckerberg
Loomer produces trash content, which got her banned at Facebook and Twitter. In response, she has brought several trash lawsuits, which have gone as well as you’d expect. Her latest trash lawsuit claimed that social media, the government, and Procter…
Photo Licensing Service Qualifies for DMCA 512(c) Safe Harbor–McGucken v. ShutterStock
McGucken is a professional photographer who has appeared on the blog before. He claims that third party “contributors” uploaded his copyrighted photos to ShutterStock as part of ShutterStock’s licensing program. Specifically, McGucken claims that a total of 337 images were…
In a SAD Scheme Case, Court Rejects Injunction Over “Emoji” Trademark
This is a SAD Scheme case from one of my least-favorite rightsowners, Emojico. (I wrote an expert declaration about them in 2021). Emojico has trademark registrations in the word “emoji” for a ridiculously broad range of product categories–from (I’m not…