Web Page Framing Isn’t Trespass to Chattels–Best Carpet Values v. Google
This case is an old-school turn-of-the-century throwback (and not the good kind). Google’s search app framed the web pages users visit, and the frame included ads. Some screenshots depicting the framing (the first image shows Google’s superimposed frame on the…
Ninth Circuit Confusion About Moderators and Section 230–Quinteros v. Innogames
I previously blogged this case in 2022. I summarized: This lawsuit involves the freemium videogame “Forge of Empires.” The plaintiff, Penny Quinteros (a/k/a TwoCents), claims she became addicted to the game. She played the game virtually every day from 2016-19–over…
Court Enjoins Ohio’s Law Requiring Parental Approval for Children’s Social Media Accounts–NetChoice v. Yost
Ohio enacted a law, the “Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act,” Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09. The law requires certain websites and services to obtain verifiable parental consent before children are allowed to register or create an account. The…
Judge Goes Rogue and Rejects Snap’s Section 230 Defense for [Reasons]–Neville v. Snap
The plaintiffs are parents of Snapchat users who purchased fentanyl from other Snapchat users and suffered overdoses. They sued Snapchat for a wide ranges of tort claims. To get around the clear Section 230 barrier to those claims, the plaintiffs…
Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula
This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that…
Judge Rejects a Motion With the “Exploding Head” Emoji–DePietro v. Levitt
This is a class-action employment lawsuit. The parties settled and sought judicial approval of the settlement terms and associated attorneys’ fees. They didn’t get the approval. The judge balks at several terms of the settlement, including the attorneys’ fee request….
A Judge Enumerates a SAD Scheme Plaintiff’s Multiple Abuses, But Still Won’t Award Sanctions–Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather v. Schedule A Defendants
This is a SAD Scheme case. The plaintiff, Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather, owns U.S. Patent No. 11,478,673 for an outdoor exercise product (“a rectangular-shaped buckle-and-belt mechanism, embodied in a Hanging Exercise Product that is sold online”). The plaintiff sued 163…