<?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: Second Circuit Rejects Email Service on Chinese Defendants in Baby Shark SAD Scheme Case	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/12/second-circuit-rejects-email-service-on-chinese-defendants-in-baby-shark-sad-scheme-case.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/12/second-circuit-rejects-email-service-on-chinese-defendants-in-baby-shark-sad-scheme-case.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:14:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Schedule A: Ten Notable Developments in 2025 (Guest Blog Post) - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/12/second-circuit-rejects-email-service-on-chinese-defendants-in-baby-shark-sad-scheme-case.htm#comment-4534</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Schedule A: Ten Notable Developments in 2025 (Guest Blog Post) - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:14:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=28402#comment-4534</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] In Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs usually ask for—and receive—permission to serve the defendants by email. They also often allege that the defendants are Chinese (or at least “foreign”). Just a few weeks ago, the Second Circuit held that “email service on the Chinese defendants is prohibited by the Hague Service Convention, and thus improper under Rule 4(f)(3)” (previously covered on this blog here). [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] In Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs usually ask for—and receive—permission to serve the defendants by email. They also often allege that the defendants are Chinese (or at least “foreign”). Just a few weeks ago, the Second Circuit held that “email service on the Chinese defendants is prohibited by the Hague Service Convention, and thus improper under Rule 4(f)(3)” (previously covered on this blog here). [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
