Snapchat Isn’t Liable for Its Speed Filter (Even if Section 230 Doesn’t Apply)–Maynard v. Snapchat
Snapchat’s “speed filter” allows users to overlay their speed on their content. Unsurprisingly, some users viewed this as a challenge to capture a high speed on their speed filter; and in the course of doing so, tragedy could occur. In…
Constitutional Challenge to Trump’s Anti-230 EO Fails–Rock the Vote v. Trump
[IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE!] This is one of two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s anti-Section 230 executive order from May. Because the EO said a lot (mostly lies) but did very little, the…
A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du
[VOTE EARLY AND IN-PERSON OR VIA OFFICIAL DROPOFF BOXES. DON’T RELY ON THE USPS TO DELIVER THE MAIL ON TIME!] The plaintiff sells “Pop N Go” playpens. Allegedly, up to 98% of the plaintiff’s revenues come from Facebook and Instagram….
Yet Another Twitter Account Suspension Case Fails–Jones v. Twitter
Jones had a Twitter account @aboxoffrogs. Twitter permanently suspended the account for hateful conduct. Jones sued Twitter (pro se) for (1) defamation, (2) tortious interference, (3) aiding and abetting, (4) conspiracy, (5) ratification, (6) retraction, (7) violation of Section 230(c),…
A Little Good News: SSRN Has Launched a New eJournal on Advertising & Marketing Law
I’m excited to announce that Rebecca Tushnet and I are co-editing a new SSRN eJournal, the “Advertising & Marketing Law eJournal” (official SSRN announcement below). If you are uploading scholarly works to SSRN on these topics, add your work to…
Justice Thomas Writes a Misguided Anti-Section 230 Statement “Without the Benefit of Briefing”–Enigma v. Malwarebytes
Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a plaintiff could plead around Section 230(c)(2)(B), the safe harbor for providing filtering instructions, by claiming that the filtering was motivated by anticompetitive animus. Last week, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. This isn’t…
Another Tough Ruling for Print-on-Demand Vendors–Sid Avery v. Pixels
Sid Avery photographed celebrities in the 1950s-1970s. At issue are six of his photos, all governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. Pixels[.]com is a print-on-demand vendor. Like Redbubble, it functions primarily as a marketing front-end; it outsources all manufacturing to…
SF Chronicle Op-Ed: “Prop. 24 is the Wrong Policy Approach, at the Wrong Time, via the Wrong Process”
[I published this op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday] Most voters initially are inclined to support Prop. 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). Everyone wants more privacy. But that initial support dissolves after careful scrutiny. Prop. 24 does…
LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. LinkedIn
Perez had a LinkedIn account with over 7,000 connections (really?). LinkedIn removed some of his posts and restricted access to his profile due to alleged TOU violations. State Action. Perez, proceeding pro se, alleged that LinkedIn “is subject to the…
Facebook Doesn’t Have a Duty to Prevent a Murder–Godwin v. Facebook
In 2017, Steve Stephens murdered Robert Godwin Sr. On the day of the murder, Stephens made the following post to Facebook: FB my life for the pass year has really been fuck up!!! lost everything ever had due to gambling…