Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers

Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers

No one: Absolutely no one: Ohio Board of Professional Conduct (in the third decade of the 21st century….): * * * I guess we’re doing this again. It’s 2021, long past the time consumers have come to understand competitive keyword…

Social Media Providers Aren’t Liable for Domestic Mass-Shooting–Retana v. Twitter

This is one of the dozen-plus lawsuits filed against social media providers for allegedly facilitating terrorist attacks. This particular lawsuit involved a mass-shooting of Dallas police officers in 2016. Despite the underlying tragedies, the lawsuits against social media providers have…

Domain Name Registrar Isn't Liable for Hijacked Domain Name--Rigsby v. GoDaddy

Domain Name Registrar Isn’t Liable for Hijacked Domain Name–Rigsby v. GoDaddy

Rigsby registered the scottrigsbyfoundation.org domain name via GoDaddy. He claims GoDaddy didn’t give him proper notice of renewal, so the domain name lapsed. It was then registered by an interloper who displays gambling-related material. Rigsby asked GoDaddy to give him…

Amicus Briefs Against Florida's Censorship Law (SB 7072)

Amicus Briefs Against Florida’s Censorship Law (SB 7072)

Five amicus briefs were filed in support of the NetChoice/CCIA motion for a preliminary injunction against the Florida censorship law. Highlights: Internet Association amicus brief: The February 1, 2021 coup in Myanmar exemplifies the need for quick and nimble responses…

Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!--1-800 Contacts v. FTC

Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!–1-800 Contacts v. FTC

Starting in the mid-2000s, 1-800 Contacts sought to control how its competitors bought search engine advertising triggered by its (so-called) trademarks, a process I call competitive keyword advertising. To do this, 1-800 Contacts typically sued its competitors and then quickly…

Did Facebook Commit Tortious Interference Against BrandTotal?–Facebook v. BrandTotal

BrandTotal installs (with the users’ consent) researchware that collects data from Facebook, including automated pings for data that the user has the right to view but never requested to browse. BrandTotal bypasses Facebook’s API so it can obtain information not…

More Perspectives About Van Buren v. US (Guest Blog Post)

More Perspectives About Van Buren v. US (Guest Blog Post)

by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy [Eric’s comment: this is a supplement to my more comprehensive post on Van Buren v. US] This was a critically important case with far-reaching policy implications across dozens of industries. 23 amici curiae were filed….

Print Ad's "Terms and Conditions" Don't Create Binding Arbitration Clause--Soliman v. Subway

Print Ad’s “Terms and Conditions” Don’t Create Binding Arbitration Clause–Soliman v. Subway

Subway ran a promotion offering deals if customers signed up for text messages. The stores displayed the following print ad: The language in the bottom right: Limited Time Only. Message and data rates may apply. Max10msgs/mo-Msgs may be autodialed from…

Do We Even Need the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (CFAA)?--Van Buren v. US

Do We Even Need the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (CFAA)?–Van Buren v. US

Last week, the Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. US. Many hoped the decision would clarify how owners can delimit third-party usage of their computer resources for purposes of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (CFAA). Disappointingly, the court explicitly…

Plaintiffs Request Preliminary Injunction Against Florida's Censorship Law (SB 7072)--NetChoice v. Moody

Plaintiffs Request Preliminary Injunction Against Florida’s Censorship Law (SB 7072)–NetChoice v. Moody

Last week, I blogged about Florida’s censorship law, SB 7072. Late last week, NetChoice and CCIA filed a preliminary injunction request. I hope the court strikes down the law quickly, decisively, and with all of the opprobrium (and/or mockery) it…