Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist
This is one of several pending cases against Craigslist for its alleged role in facilitating sex trafficking before 2010. In this case, the district court held that Section 230(c)(1) immunized the plaintiff’s state law claims. The plaintiff sought reconsideration due…
Op-Ed: Social Media Companies Should Permanently Ban Political Advertising
[This op-ed ran in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 8, 2020. I co-authored it with my colleague Irina Raicu from SCU’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Irina and I don’t agree on very much, so it’s always a mitzvah…
CRM Software Vendor Didn’t Qualify for Section 230–Tan v. Konnektive
This is a complex consumer protection lawsuit with dozens of defendants. This early-stage opinion is 62 pages. The case involves allegedly bogus “free trial” programs for cosmetics. The plaintiff alleges that she was duped into signing up for a free…
Court Again Enjoins Anti-TikTok Executive Order–TikTok v. US
This is another ruling involving Trump’s efforts to kick TikTok and WeChat out of the United States. This court, interpreting the authorizing statute, previously partially enjoined the Secretary of Commerce’s implementation of the anti-TikTok executive order. Again relying exclusively on…
Section 230 Protects Amazon from Manufacturer’s Ad Copy–Brodie v. Amazon
This case involves a product called “Better Than Pasta,” which contains konjac as an ingredient. Konjac can swell as it moves through the intestines, causing potentially serious injuries. As a result, some countries ban konjac products or require warning labels….
It’s Meshugenah to Operate a Streaming Mixtape Site–Atlantic v. Spinrilla
[Note: Meshugenah is Yiddish for “crazy.”] This is a brutal opinion. No matter how successful this defendant has been in the marketplace, copyright owner lawfare will almost certainly take it down. R.I.P. Spinrilla. Spinrilla is “a streaming and downloading service…
Google and YouTube Aren’t “Censoring” Breitbart Comments–Belknap v. Alphabet
Craig Belknap alleged that Google and YouTube violated the First Amendment and Section 230 by “deleting the citizen ‘Posts” that accompany and follow” Breitbart articles. (This is a pro se/in pro per suit). First Amendment. The court says “Neither Alphabet, nor…
New Ebook on Zeran v. AOL, the Most Important Section 230 Case (Techdirt Cross-Post)
[Cross-posted from Techdirt] Section 230 has become a mainstream discussion topic, but unfortunately many discussants don’t actually understand it well (or at all). To address this knowledge gap, co-editors Profs. Eric Goldman (Santa Clara Law) and Jeff Kosseff (U.S. Naval…
512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity
Okularity “represents” several photography clearinghouses. This means that Okularity’s robots scour the Internet looking for clearinghouse photos and then send automated takedown notices for alleged infringements. “Okularity waits until the notices accumulate to the point when a social media platform…
YouTube Defeats Lawsuit Over Cryptocurrency Scam–Ripple v. YouTube
Ripple Labs developed a cryptocurrency called XRP. Scammers phished verified YouTube accounts and then used the hijacked accounts to post YouTube videos–seemingly from Ripple–inducing consumers to transfer their XRP, where they were stolen. YouTube allegedly responded to takedown notices slowly….