Twitter Defeats Account Suspension Case--Craft v. Musk

Twitter Defeats Account Suspension Case–Craft v. Musk

The opinion summarizes the allegations: Defendants Twitter, Inc. and its CEO, Elon Musk, violated his First Amendment rights by blocking his Twitter account twice, for a period of seven days each, in February and March 2023. According to Plaintiff, he…

Prison Warden Says: ‘Lock The Emojis Up.’ Court Replies: ‘Free the Emojis’–Taliani v. Dortch

Prisoners have limited free speech rights. Among other things, their outgoing written communications are typically reviewed before sending. The Hill Correctional Center in Illinois bans prisoners from sending “coded” messages that the reviewers can’t understand. (I imagine other prisons have…

New Article: "The United States’ Approach to 'Platform' Regulation"

New Article: “The United States’ Approach to ‘Platform’ Regulation”

I’ve posted a new 5,000 word article, The United States’ Approach to “Platform” Regulation. The abstract: This paper summarizes the United States’ legal framework governing Internet “platforms” that publish third-party content. It highlights three key features of U.S. law: the…

Do Mandatory Age Verification Laws Conflict with Biometric Privacy Laws?--Kuklinski v. Binance

Do Mandatory Age Verification Laws Conflict with Biometric Privacy Laws?–Kuklinski v. Binance

California passed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) nominally to protect children’s privacy, but at the same time, the AADC requires businesses to do an age “assurance” of all their users, children and adults alike. (Age “assurance” requires the business…

Service Provider to a Ponzi Scheme Operation Qualifies for Section 230--Wiand v. ATC Brokers

Service Provider to a Ponzi Scheme Operation Qualifies for Section 230–Wiand v. ATC Brokers

[This opinion was issued 6 months ago, but it just showed up in my alerts.] This case involves an alleged Ponzi scheme involving foreign currency exchanges (“forex”). In addition to the direct participants in the scheme, the CFTC pursued Spotex,…

Services Aren’t Liable for Ignoring the DMCA’s 512(g) Counternotification Procedures–Hopson v. Google

This case involves a UGC anime site called Gelbooru, run by Hopson. Rightsowners sent DMCA takedown notices targeting the site to Google. (Lumen has many takedown notices containing the word “Gelbooru”). Google stripped out the notices’ identifying information and forwarded…

The First Amendment Limits Trademark Rights, But How?--Jack Daniel's v. Bad Spaniels (Guest Blog Post)

The First Amendment Limits Trademark Rights, But How?–Jack Daniel’s v. Bad Spaniels (Guest Blog Post)

by guest blogger Lisa P. Ramsey [Lisa P. Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. She writes and teaches in the trademark law area, and was one of the signatories of the…

You're a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case--Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas

You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas

Today is April Fool’s day, and longtime readers know that I do not participate in gags that undermine my credibility as a blogger. So this post is 100% true, even if it might sound farcical. * * * This ruling…

Understanding the CCB’s First Two Final Determinations (Guest Blog Post--Part 3 of 3)

Understanding the CCB’s First Two Final Determinations (Guest Blog Post–Part 3 of 3)

By guest blogger Elizabeth Townsend Gard, John E. Koerner Endowed Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School [See part 1 about defendant opt-outs and part 2 about defendant defaults.] Eight months after filing, the first two Copyright Claims Board (CCB)…

After hiQ Labs, Is Scraping Public Data Legal? (Guest Blog Post)

After hiQ Labs, Is Scraping Public Data Legal? (Guest Blog Post)

by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy Last year, the most important case in the history of web scraping—hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.—settled. After two trips to the 9th Circuit, a remand from the Supreme Court, and nearly six years of…