Last month, while sitting at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, a passenger typed www.annefrankmanuscripten.org on her laptop to look up the website at issue in the latest judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on geoblocking—the Anne Frank Fonds judgment. The retrieved webpage notified her that “due to copyright considerations,” the content, a scholarly edition of Anne Frank manuscripts, was not available to users connecting from the Netherlands.

Using a VPN service, she connected through a server in Belgium. This time the content webpage appeared, asking her to confirm that she was located in one of the listed “public domain countries.” The page warned her that if she was not located in one of those countries, she was “circumventing protection measures” and possibly “infringing copyrights.”

Had she misrepresented her location and confirmed that she was connecting from Belgium, presumably she could have accessed the content, even though she was in the Netherlands, which is not one of the public domain countries of the publication. The content is still protected by copyright in the Netherlands, where the provider of the scholarly edition has no license to make the content available to the public.

The CJEU judgment in Anne Frank Fonds does not address the liability of the cyber-traveling passenger. Instead, it concerns the liability of other actors in the story—the providers of the content and, in the abstract, a VPN provider.

Given the trajectory of prior CJEU judgments that have discussed geoblocking, and the opinion of the Advocate General in this case, the CJEU’s holdings in Anne Frank Fonds are not surprising. Under EU law, a content provider is not liable for copyright infringement by communicating a work to the public in a country where the work is still protected by copyright and for which the provider has no license, if the provider uses an effective–meaning “state of the art”–geoblocking measure. In such a case, the provider is not communicating to the public in the geoblocked country, even if Internet users can circumvent the geoblocking measure with a VPN or similar service. If the geoblocking measure is not effective and therefore a copyright-infringing communication to the public does take place in the country where the work is still protected by copyright, that communication is attributable to the provider of the content and not to the provider of the VPN or similar service.

Several aspects of the Anne Frank Fonds judgment deserve thorough analysis. At the global level, the judgment might raise concerns that it signals the end of a free and open Internet, legitimizes the balkanization of the Internet, and marks a new era of territorialization of the Internet. But none of these trends are new or surprising. In fact, some commentators might argue the opposite. By clarifying how actors on the Internet may lawfully provide a work to users only in countries where the work is in the public domain or for which the actors hold a license, the judgment advances legal certainty for actors who seek to operate lawfully in cyberspace, thus ensuring that more content becomes available online in general.

Clarity about the ability of actors to geographically limit their conduct online might be an argument against the balkanization of the Internet. If access to content can be effectively regulated by content providers, no government intervention should be necessary to wall off the Internet in individual countries. Even the territorialization of the Internet is not new; the Internet has been subject to gradually increasing territorialization from its origins, and the end of the “Wild West era” of the Internet was inevitable.

Any comprehensive analysis of Anne Frank Fonds should be subject to further debate, but two aspects can be highlighted for now: the establishment of the knowledge standard, and the assessment of the effectiveness of geoblocking measures. Both of these aspects will be crucial for the future of the Internet under the legal regime that the judgment has created.

According to the CJEU, the “obligation to adopt effective technological measures to restrict access” to copyrighted content online falls on “any person who knows or ought reasonably to have known” that a work is protected by copyright in some EU member states, even though the work is in the public domain in other member states (par. 42). In the Anne Frank Fonds case, this knowledge standard presents no issue. The defendants clearly knew that the work was still protected by copyright in the Netherlands, as was confirmed by their deployment of geoblocking measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. But in many other cases, the reasonableness of having knowledge about foreign copyright protection might be debated. Will the expectation of knowledge be the same for corporate content providers, individual influencers, and occasional social media users? Imposition of an unreasonably high standard would translate into uneconomic costs that would deter speech, or at least some speech, on the Internet.

Cost considerations might also affect the standard of legal effectiveness of geoblocking measures. While some costs of doing business on the Internet are reasonable, a requirement that would result in unreasonable costs would negatively affect speech on the Internet. Geoblocking tools are not all created equal; their effectiveness varies. If the law is to rely on geoblocking, minimal technical standards must be set to identify geoblocking tools that meet any legal minimum. In the Anne Frank Fonds judgment, the CJEU confirmed, very sensibly, that a possibility of circumvention does not automatically render geoblocking measures ineffective for legal purposes (par. 51). However, the CJEU left it to the national court to decide whether the deployed measure was effective (par. 48).

The CJEU defined “a geo-blocking measure” as “a process that is aimed at enabling or preventing access to the work published on the website depending on the geographical location of the user in the light of the Internet Protocol address (‘IP address’) which he or she uses to connect to the website” (par. 44). We can only assume, and also hope, that by prefacing the court’s definition with the phrase “[i]n the present case,” the CJEU intended the wording not to be the legal definition of geoblocking measures, because newer geoblocking tools no longer rely solely on IP addresses. If the geoblocking measure deployed by the defendants in Anne Frank Fonds relied solely on IP addresses, the question whether the measure was “state of the art” might be warranted (par. 49).

The post CJEU Judgment on Geoblocking & Standards for Knowledge of Foreign Copyright Laws and Geoblocking Measures (Guest Blog Post) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

In short, California enacted the “Yelp Law” to restrict businesses from trying to stop their consumers from posting online reviews. The statute is divided into two main operative parts. (a)(1) targets TOS provisions that restrict consumer reviews. (a)(2) targets businesses’ efforts to enforce those TOS provisions. A small team of plaintiff lawyers have been cruising the Internet, looking for TOS provisions that they claim are consumer review restrictions, and then asserting (a)(1) violations for those TOS provisions hoping for payoffs. In these enforcements, no consumer has actually been stifled in their remarks (that would support an (a)(2) violation). Worse, the plaintiffs’ lawyers often fail to display basic reading comprehension because their claims target generic and standard TOS provisions that have nothing to do with consumer reviews.

[In this case, the offending TOS provisions said that consumers “agree not to submit content to the website “‘intended to cause commercial harm’” to Peet’s or to use Peet’s trademarks “‘in any manner … that would disparage’ Peet[’s] products or brands.” These are ill-advised TOS provisions that should be rewritten, but they are also clearly not meant to restrict consumers’ abilities to post reviews.]

The Moss decision rejected similar claims because the court concluded (a)(1) had no private right of action. However, that decision was non-precedential. Now, a week later, a different California Appeals Court panel reaches the same conclusion in a precedential opinion, Arterberry v. Peet’s. The end of the Yelp Law drive-by enforcements is getting closer.

The Arterberry opinion summarizes its question and answer:

May a consumer seek monetary penalties against a company for including a contractual provision made illegal under section 1670.8 as part of the terms and conditions on its website, even if the company never threatened to enforce that provision or take any action against the consumer? We hold section 1670.8 outlaws non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts, but it unambiguously allows a consumer to bring a suit for monetary penalties only when a seller attempts to enforce such a provision or otherwise seeks to penalize a consumer.

The Arterberry opinion itself doesn’t mention the Moss opinion (which was non-precedential, and the opinions were likely drafted in parallel with each other), and the Arterberry opinion claims it is addressing a matter of “first impression” (with acknowledgements of the Shofet and Anderson federal district court opinions, neither of which bind the court, but no acknowledgement of Moss). Despite the parallel rulings, Arterberry follows the same basic logic as the Moss opinion.

The Arterberry opinion engages in a little more depth with the legislative history. The court concludes:

Section 1670.8 applies to everyone, be it a Fortune 500 company or a small family business. If, as the plaintiffs allege, the use of a nondisparagement clause created a cause of action with respect to each California resident who visited a website, with a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each such resident, then a relatively small business with 10,000 online California customers would face up to $25,000,000 in penalties for using insufficiently precise content moderation and trademark enforcement language in the terms and conditions of its website. The same business would face no more than $5,000 in penalties for actually threatening or seeking to penalize a consumer for posting a negative review. In the more than 400 pages of legislative history that the plaintiffs submitted for our review, we see nothing to suggest the Legislature intended the statute to work this way.

(To be fair, a $5k financial deterrent against suppressing consumer reviews may be too light, just as a $25M penalty for poor TOS drafting would be way too heavy. But the Yelp Law doesn’t rely solely on a private right of action; the AG’s office can enforce it too).

As I mentioned in my prior post, the mere presence of anti-consumer review clauses in TOSes could potentially chill consumers from posting reviews, even if the business never affirmatively asserts that clause. Other laws may redress that concern. And either way, the current batch of (a)(1) enforcements are not the right solution.

I wonder if the unsuccessful plaintiffs’ lawyers will ask the legislature to “fix” the statutory drafting, claiming that the courts have left consumers vulnerable to businesses’ anti-review efforts. It’s the kind of story that some legislators would be sympathetic to–if they don’t do their homework about the abuses already taking place. Even without a legitimate private right of action, plaintiffs’ lawyers have used (a)(1) to cause chaos in court and extract undeserved concessions. We need less of that, not more.

Case Citation: Arterberry v. Peet’s Coffee, Inc., 2026 WL 2185136 (Cal. App. Ct. July 29, 2026)

Selected Blog Posts Regarding 1670.8

• Appeals Court Shuts Down Bogus Private Enforcements of the ‘Yelp Law’–Moss v. GoDaddy
• Catching Up on the Bogus “Yelp Law” Litigation Campaign–Tao v. Uniqlo
• Amazon Must Defend “Yelp Law” Claim–Ramos v. Amazon
• Courts Are Rejecting Attempts to Weaponize Laws That Protect Consumer Reviews
• Businesses Cannot Contractually Ban “Abusive” Consumer Reviews
• California Tells Businesses: Stop Trying To Ban Consumer Reviews (Forbes Cross-Post)

The post Another Court Shuts the Door on “Yelp Law” Drive-By Lawsuits–Arterberry v. Peet’s appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Created by ChatGPT May 2026

In a prior post, I surveyed the rates at which consumers do not complete online age authentication processes, what I call the “balk” rate. There is no single canonical balk rate. It varies by destination behind the authentication wall, the method of authentication, demographics, and many other factors.

In my prior post, I mentioned a study from a mostly Carnegie Mellon team. I had seen a summary of the study, but the full study has now been posted. It’s worth digging into the details a little deeper.

Balk Rates by Modality

In the context of trying to complete the academic study, this chart summarizes the study participants’ balk rates by authentication modality:

Note 1: “checkbox” is self-attestation. That’s not credibly considered “authentication.”

Note 2: the email option said the process “analyzes the email’s registration source, associated employer information, and linked financial activities such as mortgages, credit cards, educational records, and consumer behavior patterns.” Though data mining sounds scary, the actual mechanics were vague and required no further effort from the consumer. This rarely will be a realistic option.

If we remove the self-attestation and the incompletely described email review options, consumers balk rates were a minimum of 48%. Study participants were trying to participate in an academic study, not complete a mission-critical life task, but if actual balk rates come anywhere close to 48%, it will completely upend the current Internet.

Efficacy of Balk Rates

The researchers also asked study participants to assess the likely efficacy of the various authentication methods. As you can see, consumers do not regard any of the techniques as particularly effective:

One participant quipped: “Chat gpt provide me an over 18 CA drivers license.”

As a bonus, the researchers said that only 0.86% of the study participants checked the study’s privacy policy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Blog Posts on Segregate-and-Suppress Obligations

• Fifth Circuit Keeps Doing Fifth Circuit Things –SEAT v. Paxton
• How Often Do Consumers Balk at Doing Online Age Authentication?
• Court Enjoins Another Arkansas Segregate-and-Suppress Law–NetChoice v. Griffin
• Too Many Courts Are Letting States Take Wrecking Balls to the Internet (Roundup)
• Texas Judge Enjoins App Store Authentication Law–CCIA and SEAT v. Paxton
• Courts Enjoin Internet Censorship Laws in Louisana and Arkansas
• Challenge to Maryland’s “Kid Code” Survives Motion to Dismiss–NetChoice v. Brown
• My Testimony Against Mandatory Online Age Authentication
• Read the Published Version of My Paper Against Mandatory Online Age Authentication
• Prof. Goldman’s Statement on the Supreme Court’s Demolition of the Internet in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
• Court Permanently Enjoins Ohio’s Segregate-and-Suppress/Parental Consent Law–NetChoice v. Yost
• Arkansas’ Social Media Safety Act Permanently Enjoined—NetChoice v. Griffin
• Why I Emphatically Oppose Online Age Verification Mandates
• California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Is Completely Unconstitutional (Multiple Ways)–NetChoice v. Bonta
• Another Conflict Between Privacy Laws and Age Authentication–Murphy v. Confirm ID
• Recapping Three Social Media Addiction Opinions from Fall (Catch-Up Post)
• District Court Blocks More of Texas’ Segregate-and-Suppress Law (HB 18)–SEAT v. Paxton
• Comments on the Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Mandatory Online Age “Verification”
• California’s “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” Is Partially Unconstitutional…But Other Parts Are Green-Lighted–NetChoice v. Bonta
• Section 230 Defeats Underage User’s Lawsuit Against Grindr–Doll v. Pelphrey
• Five Decisions Illustrate How Section 230 Is Fading Fast
• Internet Law Professors Submit a SCOTUS Amicus Brief on Online Age Authentication–Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
• Court Enjoins the Utah “Minor Protection in Social Media Act”–NetChoice v. Reyes
• Another Texas Online Censorship Law Partially Enjoined–CCIA v. Paxton
• When It Comes to Section 230, the Ninth Circuit is a Chaos Agent–Estate of Bride v. YOLO
• Court Dismisses School Districts’ Lawsuits Over Social Media “Addiction”–In re Social Media Cases
• Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Key Part of the CA Age-Appropriate Design Code (the Rest is TBD)–NetChoice v. Bonta
• Mississippi’s Age-Authentication Law Declared Unconstitutional–NetChoice v. Fitch
• Indiana’s Anti-Online Porn Law “Is Not Close” to Constitutional–Free Speech Coalition v. Rokita
• Fifth Circuit Once Again Disregards Supreme Court Precedent and Mangles Section 230–Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
• Snapchat Isn’t Liable for Offline Sexual Abuse–VV v. Meta
• 2023 Quick Links: Censorship
• Court Enjoins Ohio’s Law Requiring Parental Approval for Children’s Social Media Accounts–NetChoice v. Yost
• Many Fifth Circuit Judges Hope to Eviscerate Section 230–Doe v. Snap
• Louisiana’s Age Authentication Mandate Avoids Constitutional Scrutiny Using a Legislative Drafting Trick–Free Speech Coalition v. LeBlanc
• Section 230 Once Again Applies to Claims Over Offline Sexual Abuse–Doe v. Grindr
• Comments on the Ruling Declaring California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Unconstitutional–NetChoice v. Bonta
• Two Separate Courts Reiterate That Online Age Authentication Mandates Are Unconstitutional
• Minnesota’s Attempt to Copy California’s Constitutionally Defective Age Appropriate Design Code is an Utter Fail (Guest Blog Post)
• Do Mandatory Age Verification Laws Conflict with Biometric Privacy Laws?–Kuklinski v. Binance
• Why I Think California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Is Unconstitutional
• An Interview Regarding AB 2273/the California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC)
• Op-Ed: The Plan to Blow Up the Internet, Ostensibly to Protect Kids Online (Regarding AB 2273)
• A Short Explainer of Why California’s Social Media Addiction Bill (AB 2408) Is Terrible
• A Short Explainer of How California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Bill (AB2273) Would Break the Internet
• Is the California Legislature Addicted to Performative Election-Year Stunts That Threaten the Internet? (Comments on AB2408)
• Omegle Denied Section 230 Dismissal–AM v. Omegle
• Snapchat Isn’t Liable for a Teacher’s Sexual Predation–Doe v. Snap
• Will California Eliminate Anonymous Web Browsing? (Comments on CA AB 2273, The Age-Appropriate Design Code Act)
• Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s From User-Generated Content Services
• California’s Latest Effort To Keep Some Ads From Reaching Kids Is Misguided And Unconstitutional (Forbes Cross-Post)
• Backpage Gets Important 47 USC 230 Win Against Washington Law Trying to Combat Online Prostitution Ads (Forbes Cross-Post & More)
• Backpage Gets TRO Against Washington Law Attempting to Bypass Section 230–Backpage v. McKenna
• MySpace Wins Another 47 USC 230 Case Over Sexual Assaults of Users–Doe II v. MySpace
• MySpace Gets 230 Win in Fifth Circuit–Doe v. MySpace
• Website Isn’t Liable When Users Lie About Their Ages–Doe v. SexSearch

The post More Data on Online Age Authentication Balk Rates appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Apple’s manuevers confused the public and seemed like an embarrassing unforced error for Apple. It also ensured pressure from governments and plaintiffs, including CSAM victims, who preferred Apple’s more interventionist approaches, which Apple had voluntarily demonstrated it was willing to do.

This lawsuit represents a full-scale attack on Apple and Section 230. “Plaintiffs allege that Apple’s failure to implement any known CSAM detection is a design defect because Apple can safely implement readily available features to prevent the spread of known CSAM but has continuously failed to do so.” Prior blog post. The court dismisses the third amended complaint, which tees this case up for the Ninth Circuit, where (as usual) anything could happen.

* * *

The court reiterates that Section 230 applies to the plaintiffs’ claims:

First, Plaintiffs’ claims treat Apple as a publisher or speaker of the CSAM content that animates Plaintiffs’ injuries. Fundamentally, Plaintiffs contend that Apple has elected to permit users to disseminate and share third-party CSAM content when it could have—and, in their view, should have—used readily available technology to prevent the distribution of child pornography depicting the Plaintiffs in this putative class. The duties Plaintiffs seek to invoke “spring[ ] from the defendant’s status as publisher,” and consequently, “immunity applies.” Second, immunity also applies because “the means to avoid liability requires [Apple] to act as a publisher.” As a result, Apple is entitled to complete immunity under § 230.

Citing Doe 1 v. Meta, the court says:

Plaintiffs’ injuries are the direct result of the actions of third parties who used iCloud to share CSAM, a use Apple neither explicitly condones nor prevents (even assuming—as alleged in the TAC—that Apple was aware of the use of iCloud for this purpose)….though Plaintiffs allege that Apple knew that its tools were likely to be used to distribute child pornography (as confirmed by the internal Apple text messages at the center of this case), under the current state of the law, Apple is still entitled to immunity under § 230—irrespective of that general knowledge….

Plaintiffs cannot avoid the fact that a tool that detects CSAM must review CSAM to make such a determination. And while Apple could have taken steps to do so—as its competitors have done by using PhotoDNA—Grindr confirms that § 230 bars claims arising from the design decisions Apple could have taken where those claims relate to Apple’s role facilitating the communication and content of others

(A reminder that the defendant’s scienter is irrelevant to Section 230).

The plaintiffs tried to fit into the new Section 230 exceptions created in Doe v. Twitter, but the court rebuffs the move:

This case does not concern or even discuss Apple’s content reporting systems; it concerns Apple’s “failure to implement industry-standard safeguards” against the dissemination of CSAM. Though reporting systems and CSAM safeguards may both be described as “defects,” the latter requires the Court to treat Apple as a publisher. Twitter “could fulfill its purported duty to cure reporting infrastructure deficiencies without monitoring, removing, or in any way engaging with third-party content”; Apple cannot fulfill a duty to institute CSAM safeguards without deploying a tool like NeuralHash or PhotoDNA. Both NeuralHash and PhotoDNA were built to monitor and report violative images uploaded to company servers. Yet just the decision regarding whether to deploy either tool is a choice related to content moderation.

Also, Apple didn’t fail to satisfy any duty to report items to NCMEC if it never identified CSAM in the first place.

The Lemmon v. Snap workaround fails: “all of Plaintiffs’ claims here are inexorably linked to third-party content; Plaintiffs do not allege that Apple created content like a Snapchat filter that caused them harm.” The Roommates.com workaround also fails: “Plaintiffs do not allege that Apple modified or augmented the CSAM on its servers in any way.”

* * *

The case reaches its inevitable denouement of a win for Apple. However, Judge Wise remains troubled about its implications. She expresses her uneasiness in stronger-than-normal terms:

As it stands, nothing in the law prevents any company, including Apple, from utilizing available technology or creating new technology to identify and report child pornography stored and distributed on their traditional servers or through their cloud services. Conversely, there is no law that obligates companies to proactively do so. Undoubtedly any such legislation would come at a cost of at least some loss of privacy for millions of people. But if lawmakers expected that companies would take steps to prevent their products from being used for storing and distributing child pornography based on something short of a legal imperative, this case, like many others before it, demonstrates the inadequacy of that approach. If lawmakers want to ensure that Apple and other companies address their role in the dissemination of CSAM, they must require it under the law. In other words, lawmakers can fix this problem that is contributing to the exploitation of children.

She goes through this framing pretty quickly, but we should slow it down. The “loss of privacy for millions of people” she briefly references deserves a little more care. The opinion downplays the encryption angle; it mentions encryption only twice, as if it’s an afterthought. However, encryption is the critical attribute underlying Apple’s moves. Apple was seeking to respect that what’s on people’s hard drives should remain their business, even if they choose to store some of it in the cloud. Forcing Apple to scan private files intended for iCloud storage creates a new and dangerous threat vector for bad actors, including governments seeking to control constituent behavior.

So yes, the “privacy loss” Judge Wise mentions indeed would be a major cost to everyone. Respecting the privacy of people’s files isn’t just some nice-to-have feature; it is one of the core planks of a technology architecture that keeps people safer.

Judge Wise continues:

This Order does not turn on whether Apple’s decisions contributed to Plaintiffs’ injuries. All Plaintiffs’ claims are founded on Apple serving as a publisher of third-party content. It is that role as “publisher” that is dispositive on the issue of immunity. This does not mean that the existence of images and videos of the putative class members being sexually abused—content that they allege is regularly stored and disseminated on iCloud—has not caused Plaintiffs real and lasting harm…

the outcome also adds credence to claims that the Ninth Circuit “has expanded § 230(c)’s scope to provide functional immunity to internet companies, even when they are aware (or should be aware) of unlawful content on their websites.” The practical outcome is that the current state of the law prioritizes privacy—a laudable and critically important value given that in our modern world nearly all our most personal and intimate data (including financial and health records) are stored and transmitted online. But the law should not ignore how those who create, view, and distribute child pornography leverage privacy protections to avoid detection by law enforcement. In the current legal framework, there is no protection for members of the putative class—individuals who as children were photographed and filmed while being abused in the vilest ways imaginable, and who now are repeatedly victimized each time the intimate and tortured images of their trauma are distributed to others. Those children are the collateral damage of our ineffective legal landscape. They deserve better.

Judge Wise isn’t well-situated to compare the relative strengths and limitations of the full range of potential anti-CSAM options, but a leading tool has always been and remains the government’s efforts to find and prosecute the creators, disseminators, and downloaders of CSAM. (Do you recall the federal government’s choices that leave children more vulnerable?) Making sure the government is doing what it can should be the #1 priority.

Case Citation: Amy v. Apple Inc., 2026 WL 2031817 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2026). The complaint.

The post Apple Defeats Liability for Not Scanning iCloud Items for CSAM, But the Judge Was Not Pleased–Amy v. Apple appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Coomer v. Lindell, 2026 WL 817370 (D. Colo. March 25, 2026)

Related post. This is more fallout from the efforts to deny the 2020 presidential election results. MyPillows huckster Lindell publicly trashed Dominion Voting and and its president, Coomer. A jury held Lindell and Frankspeech liable for defamation and more. The defendants unsuccessfully tried to overturn the jury verdict post-trial.

Frankspeech invoked Section 230 for its liability for Lindell’s speech. The court disagrees:

Mr. Lindell founded Frankspeech. He regularly acted as its corporate representative, including at trial. He hosted his own show on Frankspeech, broadcasted it through Frankspeech, and used the Frankspeech platform to make and publish statements about Dr. Coomer. There is no evidence that anyone other than Mr. Lindell exercised any meaningful degree of control over the Frankspeech entity. By all accounts, Frankspeech was Mr. Lindell’s corporate alter ego in this context….for § 230 purposes, Frankspeech’s defamatory statements through its agent would plainly qualify as participation in the development of those statements.

Frankspeech also claimed Section 230 for Clement’s remarks at a conference. The court responds: “Frankspeech—through Mr. Lindell and others—sponsored, promoted, and broadcasted the event….a reasonable jury could conclude that Frankspeech’s conduct (including its conduct through Mr. Lindell) created actual or apparent authority for Mr. Clements and other presenters at the Cyber Symposium to act as agents of Frankspeech.”

Murphy v. LinkedIn Corp., 2026 WL 881710 (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2026)

Fraudsters approached Murphy via LinkedIn direct messages. The conversation switched over to WhatsApp, where the fraudsters effectuated their fraud. Murphy’s lawsuit against LinkedIn fails due to Section 230:

Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, gross negligence, and product liability are premised on a purported duty to “monitor” users, “restrict the accounts of fraudulent actors,” and to suppress “fraudulent activities” by users of LinkedIn’s platform. These claims “necessarily implicate” LinkedIn’s role as a publisher of third-party content because “discharging the alleged duty would require [LinkedIn] to monitor third-party content and prevent” communications between fraudsters and legitimate LinkedIn users. Nor can Plaintiffs sue LinkedIn for breaching a “duty to warn.” LinkedIn’s “role as a publisher of third-party content does not give it a duty to warn users of ‘a general possibility of harm’ resulting from” using LinkedIn’s services.

The plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried the defective design workaround:

Plaintiffs argue that their claims are not based on LinkedIn’s role as publisher, but rather its role “as a product manufacturer and developer of defective algorithms” that facilitated communications between fraudsters and Plaintiffs. But the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly upheld dismissal of negligence and product liability claims framed in the same way. [cites to Doe v. Grindr and Dyroff]

A Roommates.com workaround didn’t work either:

Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on LinkedIn’s neutral tools for connecting users, not on content that LinkedIn created or required users to provide as a condition of using its services. Indeed, LinkedIn expressly informs users that they “have choices about the information” on their profiles, and that users “don’t have to post or upload personal data” that may make them targets of fraud.

To put a finer point on it, if the plaintiffs are complaining about LinkedIn direct messages, then those messages may be covered by the ECPA just like email, and LinkedIn may have had limited legal rights to monitor the conversations at all.

Finally, the plaintiffs tried a TOS-based workaround, poured into consumer protection laws. The court acknowledges that some breach of contract claims may not be preempted by Section 230, but

These claims are premised on the same duties discussed above – duties to monitor, to design products in a different manner, and to warn – that fundamentally seek to hold LinkedIn liable for content created by the fraudsters. Styling these claims as different legal theories does not remove them from Section 230’s scope….

Plaintiffs seek to hold LinkedIn liable solely based on its general monitoring policy and aspirations to remove fraudulent users from its platform. Moreover, LinkedIn expressly disclaims liability by notifying users that they “may encounter content or information that might be inaccurate, incomplete, delayed, misleading, illegal, offensive, or otherwise harmful,” and that LinkedIn “generally does not review content provided by [its] Members or others.”

McNeal v. Calvin, 2026 WL 879228 (E.D. Mo. March 31, 2026)

This case relates to the TV show Love & Marriage: Huntsville, shown on OWN (Oprah’s channel). The plaintiff, a lawyer (naturally), is one of the women featured in the show. She is upset about online comments about the show and sued many defendants pro se. The court says “Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act bars Plaintiff’s claims against YouTube, Google, and Tik Tok.” In particular, “The content uploaded by users cannot be attributed to internet service providers based on the theory that users are “agents” of the websites they use.”

Shiva Ayyadurai v. U.S., 2026 WL 879409 (D.C.D.C. March 31, 2026). My prior blog post about a different litigation of his.

This is a jawboning case:

Ayyadurai’s 75-page Complaint alleges that various Massachusetts state officials—none of whom are named as Defendants in this case—federal officials at the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), and other government officials unknown to him have coordinated with private companies to regulate and censor his speech by “deplatforming” or “shadowbanning” him—that is, suspending his social media accounts or limiting the reach of his posts. Ayyadurai alleges that the Defendants took these actions in retaliation for posts in which he “articulat[ed] a government employee’s role in destroying the digital ballot images used to tabulate votes” in a prior election.

With respect to the liability of the social media defendants who allegedly got jawboned, the court accepts the 230(c)(2)(A) defense:

Ayyadurai’s Complaint fails to state a claim against the Social Media Defendants based on their content-moderation decisions because he does not plausibly allege that any of those decisions were made in the absence of “good faith” or that they were made for a purpose other than removing content that they “consider[ ] to be … objectionable.”…

conclusory allegations of bad faith are insufficient to state a claim against a platform based on activity within the reach of Section 230(c)(2).

At the same time, the court struggled with applying to Section 230(c)(1) to the removal decisions. Incredibly, it says:

only a few of the decisions restating this broad dictum [from Zeran] have grappled with its implications when the challenged conduct is a platform’s decision to remove objectionable content—such as a plaintiff’s own posts—rather than a decision to leave other objectionable content in place. Extending immunity under Section 230(c)(1) to cover direct challenges to the removal of user content is an uneasy fit with the language of the provision, which says only that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” A broad reading of Section 230(c)(1) that immunizes all content-removal decisions also risks “swallo[wing] the more specific immunity in (c)(2),” which applies only to content-moderation decisions that are made in “good faith.”

Not this shit again. I have repeatedly explained how Section 230(c)(2) can apply to first-party filtering decisions, which leaves room for Section 230(c)(1) to protect against liability for third-party content. There are DOZENS of cases applying Section 230(c)(1) to removal decisions, so for the court to think that it’s spotted something that all of those other courts have missed is laughable…and completely gratuitous…and ultimately inconsequential given that the court still tosses the case.

The court tries to justify its reluctance on Section 230(c)(1):

There is little reason to strain the reach of the immunity in Section 230(c)(1) when, as in this case, the immunity in Section 230(c)(2) leads to the same result.

NOOOO. There are several excellent reasons to apply both 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2):

(1) 230(c)(1) doesn’t have a good faith prerequisite, which has mucked up 230(c)(2) jurisprudence and made 12(b)(6) dismissals much more difficult to obtain, jacking up the litigation costs for both sides and giving false hope to bogus claims. Indeed, because the court dismissed this case without prejudice, I’m sure an amended complaint will try again to manufacture bad faith sufficient to kick the case into very expensive discovery;

(2) removal and leave-up decisions are two sides of the same decision, i.e., every editorial decision about an item of third-party content is either a leave-up or removal decision, so they cannot be separated; and

(3) the statute and 25+ years of caselaw have established the principle that 230(c)(1) applies to removal decisions.

Sigh. In the end, this case ends up the same as all of the other content removal and account termination cases–dismissed.

Gaughan v. Barounis, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 17243 (N.Y. Supreme Ct. December 18, 2025) 

The Complaint alleges that the impersonating profile and pictures of plaintiff were posted by defendants Barounis and Viera. Plaintiff’s contention that the XVideo defendants are liable for refusing or failing to remove offending material prepared by a third party, or that they may be held responsible for allegedly defamatory postings made by third parties does not state a viable basis for liability. Nowhere in the Complaint does plaintiff allege that the XVideo defendants posted or created the impersonating profile themselves, altered or edited its contents, or encouraged, required, or otherwise induced defendants Barounis and/or Viera, or any other user, to create the profile or upload unlawful content. To the contrary, plaintiff even alleges in her Complaint that Barounis and Viera allegedly making this impersonating profile goes against XVideo.com’s Terms and Agreements.

The Court also finds plaintiff’s argument that the XVideo defendants should be responsible for her alleged stolen identity, and that Section 230 does not apply in cases, unavailing.

It has also been held that “Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Right Law sounds in privacy, not intellectual property, and thus does not fall within the intellectual property exceptions in Section 230.”

Equally, plaintiff’s contention that this immunity is lost because the XVideo defendants allowed the dissemination of plaintiff’s personal information and allowed discriminatory content (age, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.) is unsuccessful.

Arana v. Molta, 2026 WL 1166348 (D. Mass. March 24, 2026)

Mr. Molta drafted the description of, and provided the photos for, the Dennis Property posted to WNAV’s website. WNAV did not review, revise, edit, or provide feedback on the Dennis Property listing that the Moltas posted to the WNAV website. WNAV is thus immune from liability for any of the statements or representations made by the Moltas in the Dennis Property listing.

Greer v. Moon, 2026 WL 1170015 (D. Utah. Feb. 11, 2026)

Mr. Greer’s only claims against Defendants are for contributory copyright infringement under federal law. Because those claims clearly “pertain[ ] to intellectual property,” they cannot be barred by section 230. Defendants’ argument concerning section 230 immunity fails.

Tufano v. Google LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100789 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2026)

“Plaintiff premises his claims on Google allegedly “filter[ing] out all negative reviews” of Dr. Taban, including Plaintiff’s negative review, which Google allegedly removed.” The court dismisses per Section 230: “First, Google’s review service is an interactive computer service. Second, Google publishes the reviews on which Plaintiff bases his claims. Third, third parties, and not Google itself, provide the reviews published by Google.” The plaintiff said Google didn’t act in good faith, but Google relied on 230(c)(1) where good faith is irrelevant, and the plaintiff didn’t provide any evidence of bad faith.

Starship LLC v. Shein Distribution Co., 2026 WL 1455009 (C.D. Cal. March 20, 2026)

This is a fast fashion enforcement lawsuit that includes both copyright and trademark claims. The direct infringement claims largely fail because Shein operates as a marketplace for online vendors. The contributory infringement claims failed because the plaintiff wanted a staydown in response to takedown notices. The vicarious infringement claims also fail.

Shein defended against the unfair competition claim based on Section 230. The court says:

Plaintiff characterizes Shein as an information content provider because it “regularly markets and sells goods” and “is involved in almost all aspects of the marketplace’s distribution chain.” These conclusory assertions do not plausibly allege that Defendants are content providers. Plaintiff provides no factual basis to infer that Defendants materially contributed to the alleged infringement.

King v. Jilin Province Detiannuo Safety Tech. Co. Ltd., 2026 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 295 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 17, 2026)

Plaintiff does not allege that eBay participated in the creation or development of Seller’s listing or allege that eBay played some role in handling or transmitting the airbag components. Plaintiff only alleges that eBay should have removed Seller’s listing and/or issued some censure to Seller for its alleged noncompliant listing….

The only way eBay allegedly could have prevented the harm was by reviewing the third-party listing, determining whether it complied with internal policies, and removing it. That conduct, i.e., deciding whether to publish or remove third-party content, is a paradigmatic editorial function protected by the CDA.

In re Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, 2026 WL 1552391 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2026)

The Court finds Defendants’ argument that Section 230 provides immunity from suit unavailing. Defendants point to the clause in Section 230 that states that “no cause of action may be brought” that is contrary to the statute. 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3). But the Tenth Circuit has held that Section 230 “provides immunity only from liability, not suit.” And the Ninth Circuit case Defendants themselves cite clearly states that Section 230 is designed “to protect websites against the evil of liability for failure to remove offensive content”; that case does not mention protection from suit. Thus, the Court concludes that Section 230 does not protect Defendants from suit.

Accardi v. CSC Holdings, LLC, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 83186 (N.Y. Supreme Ct. November 26, 2024)

The plaintiffs claim that defendants failing to follow their terms of service makes them liable to the plaintiffs, effectively negating the immunity provided by the Communications Decency Act. After a review of the papers submitted by the defendants and the plaintiffs, the Court finds that the immunity provided by Section 230 does apply to the defendants in this action and the plaintiffs have not proffered any compelling argument or evidence to negate this immunity. As such, the defendants motion to dismiss the third cause of action pertaining to the failure to remove posts on social media is granted.

Life Mastery Network LLC v. Haygarth, 2026 WL 1622887 (D. Haw. May 22, 2026)

Paula indisputably enjoys immunity under the CDA for reposting content. Many courts have included private individuals within the scope of a “user.” Thus, (1) Paula is a “user of an interactive computer service”; (2) the subreddit link is “based on information provided by another information content provider”; and (3) Plaintiffs’ claim would treat Paula “as the publisher or speaker of that information.” As such, and as Plaintiffs have conceded at the Hearing, Paula is immune from lawsuit for what she reposted from Reddit.

But because the CDA does not immunize someone who posts original content, it makes sense that adding comments to something that is re-posted would not trigger CDA immunity. While these cited cases are not directly on point, the Court concludes that Paula’s comments regarding what she reposted are not subject to CDA immunity.

Glazer v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:25-cv-01849-GLR (D. Md. June 12, 2026)

The Court agrees with Meta that Section 230 bars Plaintiffs’ claims….All three elements are satisfied here: Meta is an interactive services provider; Plaintiffs’ claims treat Meta as the publisher or speaker of information under Section 230 because they “seek ‘to hold [Meta] liable for . . . deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content’ provided by third parties”; and the content at issue here is that of third parties, and Plaintiffs “seek[] to hold Meta liable, not for providing that content, but for allowing third parties to do so.”

Related ruling.

Sidoli v. YouTube LLC. 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210953 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025)

Plaintiff also seeks to treat YouTube as a publisher because she alleges that YouTube wrongfully demonetized, restricted, and removed her videos. Such conduct falls within a publisher’s traditional functions….

YouTube cited authority that which stand for the proposition that Section 230 immunizes internet service providers from suit for termination of a plaintiff’s entire channel as well as the content that the plaintiff posts on that channel. Such authority is persuasive. Thus, any claim Plaintiff brings which seeks to challenge YouTube’s decision to remove Plaintiff’s YouTube channel is also barred by Section 230.

Also, “Plaintiff’s constitutional claims cannot proceed as YouTube is a private forum, not a state actor.”

See also Sidoli v. YouTube LLC, 2026 WL 1480407 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2026), upholding YouTube’s TOS and forum selection clause: “Defendants provide evidence, which Plaintiff does not dispute, showing that she agreed to abide by the terms of service by clicking the “Create Channel” button when she started her YouTube page on June 21, 2021.”

Kennedy v. Vickery, 2025 Me. Super. LEXIS 108 (Me. Superior Ct. Sept. 10, 2025)

RFK Jr. lost a defamation lawsuit. As for Section 230:

Defendant posted on X, without comment, a link to an article, authored by thegrio.com, titled “Anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is harming black people—and his family legacy—with his vaccine misinformation campaign.”…

Under the Communications Decency Act, internet service users are not liable for repeating, without embellishment, third party content….

Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint supports Defendant’s assertion that he posted the third-party content without embellishment. Plaintiff denies Defendant posted the link without embellishment, but cites no admissible record evidence to support the denial. Thus, under the Communications Decency Act, Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff for this post.

Awoye v. Jones, 2026 WL 1847088 (D.N.J. June 26, 2026)

In Instagram posts, Jones claims that Awoye scammed her. Awoye sued her and brought Meta along for the ride, claiming it had violated his publicity rights. There isn’t any publicity rights violation here:

The core of Plaintiff’s allegations is that Jones spread allegedly false information about Plaintiff on Instagram. Jones was not selling a product or otherwise soliciting money from her followers. As such, neither was Instagram. Jones’ posts were the “dissemination of news or information” and not made for a commercial purpose.”

Norton v. Meta Platform, Inc., 2026 WL 1963120 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2026)

In posts on Facebook, several third parties accused Norton of criminal activity and shared intimate images of him….

“Meta is an interactive computer service provider.” Second, Norton alleges that third parties, not Meta, created the Facebook posts at issue; the third parties, not Meta, are the “information content provider[s].” Third, each of Norton’s claims seek to treat Meta as a “publisher” of third-party content. “A claim that obliges the defendant to monitor thirdparty content to avoid liability … treats the defendant as a publisher.”

Norton argued “but the algorithms.” Citing Ligon, the court says the algorithms matter only if the algorithm creates content. Citing Roommates.com, the court adds: “Norton doesn’t allege that Meta required its third-party users to create or post any of the content at issue.”

Moore v. LogSat Software LLC, 2022 WL 23074273 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2022)

John Moore has never been accused of, arrested for, or convicted of any sex-related offense; yet, his name, picture, address, and other identifying information appear on LogSat Software LLC’s app, called “Sex Offenders Search”….

Mr. Moore was convicted in Indiana of voluntary manslaughter. Thus, he was required to register on a violent crime registry in Indiana. The violent offender and sex offender registries are the same in Indiana—in other words there are not two separate lists. Mr. Moore testified that he believed that there was no national violent offender registry, just a national sex offender registry and that he is on that because the Indiana Registry is reported to the National registry….

the alleged defamatory statement at issue is that Mr. Moore’s name, picture, address, and other identifying information appear on app called “Sex Offenders Search,” because he is not a sex offender and has never been accused of, arrested for, or convicted of any sex-related crimes. Mr. Moore does not allege that he was wrongfully included in the data set that LogSat purchased from FWD, or, for that matter, that he was wrongfully included on Indiana or the National registries.

The post Large Roundup of Section 230 Rulings appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Cloudflare provides content delivery network (CDN) services to Meta/Facebook. The plaintiff claims the images remained on Cloudflare months after she demanded their removal from Facebook. The opinion doesn’t indicate if the plaintiff tendered a notice directly to Cloudflare or when (if ever) Cloudflare knew/should have known that the images were NCII. Plus, even if the plaintiff had submitted a takedown notice to Cloudflare directly, Cloudflare would have simply forwarded it to Facebook because Cloudflare can’t remove the images from Facebook’s site.

Note how this lawsuit is trying to impose tertiary liability on Cloudflare: Alleged wrongdoer = ex-fiance. Supporter to wrongdoer = Facebook. Supporter to supporter to wrongdoer = Cloudflare as service provider to Facebook. I have repeatedly expressed my concerns about potential tertiary liability. Nevertheless, some courts have illogically implied that a tertiary defendant may be liable for the primary wrongdoing and may not qualify for Section 230, even if the secondary defendant might qualify for Section 230.

Despite the ongoing swiss cheese-ification of Section 230, this case ends up being a fairly straightforward Section 230 dismissal for Cloudflare.

Publisher/Speaker Treatment

The plaintiff argued that because Cloudflare doesn’t have the ability to remove the images, Cloudflare didn’t make any publication decisions and thus wasn’t being treated as a “publisher or speaker.” (The court doesn’t explore the obvious problem when the plaintiff admits that Cloudflare lacked the ability to redress the problem). The court responds that, per Doe v. Twitter, Section 230 applies to any content dissemination, which Cloudflare does.

Cloudflare Doesn’t Become an Information Content Provider if It’s Also an Access Software Provider 

Cloudflare claimed to be an access software provider per Section 230(f)(4). The plaintiff tried a bizarre argument that, by invoking that characterization, Cloudflare admitted it had become an information content provider of the NCII. I didn’t understand this argument, and I don’t think the court did either.

Instead, the court treats this argument as an attempted Roommates.com workaround, which does not succeed: “Not only did Cloudflare not encourage the development of the content, but it had no ability to directly remove it from Facebook. Instead, like GoDaddy, Cloudflare merely provided access to content created by a third party, which is activity protected under section 230.”

IP Exception to Section 230

Although presumably the plaintiff owned the copyrights to the selfies she sent to her ex-fiance, she did not allege copyright infringement, which would have been excluded from Section 230 per the statutory exception for IP claims. Instead, the plaintiff advanced claims per the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 § 1309, 15 U.S.C. § 6851. An 6851 claim is not an IP claim. Cite to Doe v. X, which said “the statute under which Plaintiff sues—§ 6851—is not an intellectual property law.”

How Might the Take It Down Act Apply?

The court didn’t discuss the Take It Down Act, but it seems highly relevant to this case. [Note: there isn’t supposed to be a private right of action in the Take It Down Act, but I’m sure plaintiffs will try to manufacture one anyway.]

Per the Take It Down Act, Facebook would have to remove the images within 48 hours of receiving notice.

I can’t tell if Cloudflare would be governed by the Take It Down Act when it’s acting as a CDN. A “covered platform” is either:

• a platform that “primarily provides a forum for user-generated content.” This does not apply to Cloudflare because it’s a B2B service to such forums.
• a platform “for which it is in the regular course of trade or business of the website, online service, online application, or mobile application to publish, curate, host, or make available content of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions.” I’m not sure if this definition is meant to cover every website or app that might have a stray depiction of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions (this would be every UGC site that permits video or graphics, and it might apply to Cloudflare as a “host”), or if the definition only reaches platforms that focus on such content, like the old “revenge porn” websites.

The definition of “covered platform” excludes IAPs, email service providers, and a service that “consists primarily of content that is not user generated but is preselected by the provider.” I don’t think a CDN clearly fits into any of those exclusions. So does Cloudflare have to comply with the Take It Down Act? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If Cloudflare is a covered platform, I don’t see how Cloudflare could comply. As a CDN, it doesn’t have the ability to remove individual items. Now what? Would Cloudflare have to block all of Facebook each time it receives a Take It Down Act takedown demand covering an item on Facebook?

Case Citation: Doe v. Cloudflare, Inc., 2026 WL 1805000 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2026)

Selected Prior Posts Relating to Cloudflare/CDNs

• Using a CDN May Contribute to Finding Personal Jurisdiction–R18 v. ThisAV
• Cloudflare Isn’t Liable for Providing Services to Alleged Infringers–Mon Cheri Bridals v. Cloudflare
• The Legal Implications of Datacenter Location (Guest Blog Post)
• Data Center Avoids Copyright Liability By Forwarding DMCA Notices to Its Customer–ALS Scan v. Steadfast
• Bittersweet DMCA Safe Harbor Defense Win in Ninth Circuit–Ventura v. Motherless (Catch-Up Post)
• Ad Network Defeats Secondary Copyright Claims–ALS Scan v. JuicyAds

The post Cloudflare Defeats Lawsuit Over Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery (NCII) on Facebook–Doe v. Cloudflare appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

After that, Halmaghi kicked them out of the private Facebook group she administered called “Island Lake of Novi Residents.” The plaintiffs allege several connections between the Island Lake of Novi HOA and the private group, including that the HOA posts official notices there, which the plaintiffs couldn’t access.

The plaintiffs sued the HOA and other defendants. The plaintiffs claimed Fair Housing Act and other anti-discrimination violations. The claims against the HOA fail mostly due to the pleadings’ lack of specificity about the HOA/private group linkages.

As a result, this case becomes a fairly routine lawsuit over online account termination–except at the private group level rather than the server level. Non-governmental group administrators can exclude anyone they want from their groups, just as dozen of cases have established that services can terminate users’ accounts.

For example, the court says the exclusion from the group isn’t sufficiently extreme or outrageous to constitute IIED:

if a physical chase while yelling in the workplace and defamation are not sufficiently outrageous to set forth an IIED claim, then it is a stretch to imagine that exclusion from a Facebook group would qualify under this high bar.

Case dismissed against the HOA.

[Note: Although I support the legal freedom of online group administrators to decide group membership, including account termination as capricious retaliation for a negative online review, I also note the possibility that the plaintiffs’ exclusion was in fact motivated by racism or national origin discrimination, which would not be very neighborly at all. If so, it would be especially troubling to see in a metropolitan like Detroit, which has a very long and sordid history of racism in real property matters].

This case fits into several blog themes:

• The interplay between Internet Law and real estate law. The compare/contrast of real property and virtual property is a cyberlaw classic.
• HOAs are microcosms of community governance and enforcement, for better and for worse. Some other HOA/Internet Law blog posts (1, 2).
• Private Facebook groups are an important part of society but they don’t always get the attention they deserve. Some prior posts about private Facebook groups: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Case Citation: Khan v. Island Lake of Novi Community Association, 2026 WL 1833497 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2026)

The post Private Facebook Group Can Exclude Member–Khan v. ILONCA appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

The question in this case is whether Facebook is liable for the scammy ads. The lower court dismissed the case due to the scienter requirements of Arkansas’ publicity rights statute. At the same time, the lower court rejected Section 230 due to the atrocious Anderson v. TikTok ruling [FN]. Huckabee sought a reconsideration of the court’s initial opinion but got the same result.

FN: In the Third Circuit, publicity rights claims are not covered by Section 230 due to the IP exception. The lower court didn’t address that issue, but Section 230 was unlikely to govern this case either way.

On appeal, with two Trump appointees on the panel (including Judge Bove), the Third Circuit revives Huckabee’s case in an inappropriately brief and inadequately reasoned non-precedential opinion.

The opinion turns on Facebook’s scienter about the scam. A reminder that courts normally don’t reach scienter issues about third-party content (including third-party ads) because Section 230, when it applies, preempts any inquiries about scienter. That’s one of Section 230’s core strengths. When Section 230 doesn’t apply, courts routinely conduct tendentious, epistemological, and often irresolute (or, at least, unpredictable) inquiries into what the defendant “knew” about the third-party content and when. Scienter inquiries are extremely dangerous for online publishers, because courts can often manipulate the scienter standard (in this case, it was set by statute) and plaintiffs can always find some facts that could impute scienter with enough squinting.

Huckabee alleged the following aspects of Facebook’s scienter:

• Meta sells advertisements;
• Meta allows advertisers to pay more to popularize those advertisements;
• Huckabee is a nationally recognized celebrity;
• Huckabee “has been a lifelong opponent of marijuana and its derivatives—i.e., CBD”;
• Meta hosted inaccurate CBD advertisements with Huckabee’s unauthorized name, image, or likeness;
• In one of those advertisements, Meta hosted a fake ‘FoxNews.com’ link;
• Meta approved the advertisements;
• Meta has approved CBD advertisements with fake endorsements from other media celebrities since at least 2021; and
• Meta’s approval and maintenance of the Huckabee advertisements was with actual malice or, at least, with reckless disregard to their truthfulness or accuracy.

This list of Facebook’s alleged sins looks rote and generic. Similar allegations could be made against almost every online publisher of third party content (ads or editorial). Ordinarily, Section 230 should moot these inquiries.

With respect to publisher liability, the Arkansas publicity rights statute specifies a scienter standard of actual knowledge or constructive knowledge, defined as being “aware of facts or circumstances from which a violation of this subchapter is apparent.” This is a DMCA 512 “red flags”-style scienter level, so I rate it as somewhere between recklessness and negligence.

Here is the unpublished opinion’s entire “analysis” of Huckabee’s allegations about Facebook’s scienter (it was one long paragraph; I added paragraph breaks):

As a baseline, the advertisements are premised on a development that Huckabee, a public figure and “lifelong opponent of marijuana and its derivatives—i.e., CBD”–is now endorsing CBD products. While such a stark change of heart can be convincing, in the context of an advertisement, it also raises questions about the legitimacy of the changed position. Those doubts, by themselves, are not enough to infer that Meta had constructive knowledge of the misuse of Huckabee’s name, image, or likeness.

The original complaint tries to bolster that inference by also alleging that Facebook previously hosted similar, fraudulent CBD advertisements using the name, image, and likeness of other media personalities, and that news outlets reported on those instances. That helps, but even the combined effect of those allegations does not cross the plausibility threshold.

Most critically, however, the original complaint states that one of the advertisements displayed on Facebook’s platform linked to a website falsely purporting to be a Fox News article. That bogus link, when coupled with the unusual association of Huckabee and CBD and the prior fraudulent CBD advertisements on Facebook, suffices for allegations that Meta was plausibly “aware of facts or circumstances” from which the advertisements’ misuse of Huckabee’s name, image, or likeness was “apparent.”

To recap, the court says that Facebook didn’t have scienter about the scammy CBD based on (1) Huckabee’s fame or his putative change of position about CBD, or (2) Facebook hosting other CBD scam ads or reading news reports about the scam. The court doesn’t say why these allegations weren’t enough, or why the presence of the other ads “helps” the plaintiffs but not enough to clear the threshold. So far, the court simply spits out two conclusory rejections of the scienter allegations.

The court then says Huckabee magically crossed over the scienter line by combining the prior two sets of allegations PLUS the allegation that “one of the advertisements displayed on Facebook’s platform linked to a website falsely purporting to be a Fox News article.”

What? I have so many questions, none of which were answered by the court’s conclusory statement:

• How would Facebook know the landing page is bogus? Can you tell the differences between Fox News content and parody?
• How should Facebook check every ad link to confirm the landing page’s veracity?
• Could Facebook run some kind of automated landing page validator that would negate its purported scienter, at least to this panel’s satisfaction?
• Many advertisers use multiple ad landing pages that vary by recipient and by ad copy. Would that matter to any evaluation about whether the landing page was bogus?
• Many ads run through affiliates, who may use their own URLs and copy for landing pages. Would that matter to the bogus determination?
• Is the panel saying that only the ad with the “bogus” landing page is still in play, or because one of the ads had a bogus landing page, Facebook now had scienter about all of the ads? I think it’s the latter, but then the court didn’t explain how one ad’s problems impute liability for all of the other ads.

In other words, because the panel didn’t provide any actual explanation, the court’s ruling doesn’t make sense and leaves open many, many key questions.

The court remands the case for further evaluation of the “merits” of Huckabee’s publicity rights claim.

* * *

This ruling is a microcosm of the broader battles over scammy online ads. Since the Goddard v. Google case in 2009, it was black letter law that online publishers weren’t liable for scammy ads per Section 230. Section 230’s applicability to scam ads was overridden by the Calise v. Meta decision. Since then, courts have found a variety of ways to expose online publishers to increased liability for scam ads, at least at early litigation stages.

To be clear, online publishers absolutely must take steps to protect their audience from scammy advertisers. Otherwise, scam advertisers will abuse the audience’s goodwill towards the publisher to make illegitimate sales, driving out the legitimate advertisers and likely taking the publisher down too. We can debate if Facebook does enough to combat scammy ads (I haven’t formed a definitive conclusion on that question). But this ruling represents an implicit broadside against the automated operation of self-service ad programs, asking Facebook to validate something that isn’t within the four corners of the ad copy. Given that it’s difficult or impossible of the publisher adequately validating that information, imposing a legal obligation like that jeopardizes the feasibility of self-service ad tools. That, in turn, could have dramatic effects on advertisers, publishers, and the entire Internet ecosystem.

Case Citation: Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-2347 (3d Cir. June 23, 2026)

BONUS: Awoye v. Jones, 2026 WL 1847088 (D.N.J. June 26, 2026): In Instagram posts, Jones claims that Awoye scammed her. Awoye sued her and brought Meta along for the ride, claiming it had violated his publicity rights. But there isn’t any New Jersey publicity rights violation here:

The core of Plaintiff’s allegations is that Jones spread allegedly false information about Plaintiff on Instagram. Jones was not selling a product or otherwise soliciting money from her followers. As such, neither was Instagram. Jones’ posts were the “dissemination of news or information” and not made for a commercial purpose.”

Something you don’t see every day: the plaintiff’s lawyer’s law firm bio highlights that he is an “active member of MENSA [and] edits and contributes to Proteus, the newsletter for Delaware Valley Mensa.”

The post Scammy Ad Lawsuits Keep Vexing the Courts–Huckabee v. Meta appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

The first two rulings came in March. In the Bouck case, the court rejected Facebook’s Section 230 defense because Facebook’s generative AI allegedly contributed to the ad copy. In the Suddeth case, the court accepted Facebook’s Section 230 defense because the plaintiffs focused on algorithmic amplification.

Although the Bouck case initially overcame Section 230, in an under-the-radar ruling this week, the court nevertheless dismissed it as preempted by federal securities law. So the Bouck plaintiffs got a first-hand taste of the infamous Ninth Circuit switcheroo, which occurs when the plaintiffs get false hope that they might actually win because they got around Section 230, only to slam into other brick walls in their prima facie case.

The March Bouck Ruling

Section 230

Meta’s Section 230 defense turns on whether it was a co-creator of the ads sufficient to become an “information content provider.” The court says “What it means to “create” or “develop” content on the internet is not self-evident.” The court says there’s a fact dispute over whether Facebook’s contributions were material:

The alleged illegality stems from the advertisements’ content—i.e., the false statements made to Facebook and Instagram users that induced them to click on the ads. Plaintiffs have averred that Meta participated in the construction of the ads by literally generating, using artificial intelligence, the images and text in the advertisements. That degree of participation is not protected by section 230…. [cite to Forrest v. Meta]

The district court in Forrest accepted that optimizing the appearance of an ad to drive engagement was enough of a contribution to the ads’ illegality to preclude section 230 immunity. Here, in addition to averring facts which, if proven, would establish that Meta altered the ads’ appearance to maximize impressions, Plaintiffs have averred that Meta’s tools allowed the scammers to produce “AI-generated text and images” for use in the ads through its Advantage+ Creative tool.

The court says Carafano doesn’t help Facebook because:

Plaintiffs have averred that Meta created the offending information by generating some of the false statements that tricked them into the investment scheme….

Plaintiffs aver that the scammers used Meta’s Advantage+ Creative tool which, as explained, uses artificial intelligence to enhance whatever message the user inputs. If a user, for example, tells the tool that he is interested in an ad promising astronomical weekly investment returns, Advantage+ Creative will spin up a slew of ads that include the provided language and other language, images, and videos it decides will be effective in promoting the user’s chosen message….

Without question, Advantage+ Creative and the other tools in Meta’s advertising suite would not have come up with that language without the inspiration from the scammers, but that language is still the creation of Meta.

One way of reading this decision is that Section 230 has limited applicability to Generative AI outputs. If the model outputs something new (as opposed to verbatim replicating material in its index or provided by the user), then the newly created material isn’t covered by Section 230.

Aiding and Abetting Fraud

The court says Facebook’s ad review process should have detected that the ad looked scammy (see an example on the right): “Even a cursory look would warrant suspicion that the ad is fraudulent. Meta cannot, with a straight face, claim otherwise.” Facebook responded that the ad review was automated (i.e., no human performed the “cursory look” that the judge was contemplating), a response the judge calls “confounding” because “It was Meta’s decision to use technological review tools to screen ads, and it does not now get to claim it had no idea what was going on because it tasked some software program with doing the first pass.”

The judge is dabbling with some heady topics here in an unsatisfying and superficial way. At core, the judge–whether he intended to or not–is addressing the epistemological question of when a machine “knows” something. This is a crucial topic for the digital age, and it deserves more in-depth and thoughtful treatment than the judge provides here. Alternatively, the judge is accepting an argument that it’s “willful blindness” to turn over ad review to the machines. But nowadays machines do a lot of scanning and screening without humans in the loop, and it deserves some careful and thoughtful judicial review to determine if such delegation deserves to be condemned with a “willful blindness” style punishment. The judge didn’t do that either.

Contract Breach

The plaintiffs tried the oh-so-tired hack of claiming that TOS content policy restrictions should be treated as affirmative representations that the policies won’t be violated. Not this again. Sigh. The judge doesn’t take the bait (cite to Lloyd v. Facebook):

The provision of the ToS on which Plaintiffs rely does not expressly or impliedly impose a binding contractual obligation on Meta to do anything. It is much more naturally read as a creating a duty of its users not to pollute Meta’s platforms with scam investment ads….

To the extent the ToS even mentions Meta doing something to prevent fraud, it speaks only in aspirational terms…Meta, however, never promises to take concrete steps to effectuate that aspiration.

Negligence

“Plaintiffs have averred that Meta did more than just sit idle as fraudsters roamed freely on their platforms. Therefore, no “special relationship” need be pleaded for the case to move forward.”

Unruh Act

“Plaintiffs here aver that they were targeted because of their race or national origin, not that they were excluded from anything. Whatever moral condemnation that merits, it is not a violation of the Unruh Act.”

The court distinguishes Liapes because, in that case, the plaintiff complained she didn’t receive ads based on her protected classifications. Here, the plaintiffs got the ads: “Far from encountering an exclusionary practice, they encountered an inclusionary one—it is just that they wish they were not included.” The court rejects the plaintiffs’ attempt “to spin Liapes into a general prohibition on targeting based on protected characteristics.”

Case Citation: Bouck v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 810036 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2026)

The March Suddeth Ruling

Because of its implications for Generative AI, the Bouck case has garnered some coverage. That coverage overshadowed a companion case, the Suddeth decision, issued by the same judge, on the same day, involving the same basic claim (Chinese stock pumping-and-dumping). Unlike the Bouck case, the judge dismissed the Suddeth case.

In Bouck, the plaintiffs claimed that Facebook helped the advertiser build and polish up the ads using Generative AI. In Suddeth, the plaintiffs claimed Facebook algorithmically amplified the ads. The court has little difficulty concluding that algorithmic amplification is governed by Section 230, citing Dyroff and Doe v. Grindr:

Their theory of algorithmic amplification is nothing more than an averment of facilitation. The core illegality—the choice to use Plaintiffs’ likeness and falsely represent that they endorsed certain investments—was exclusively undertaken by the scammers. Meta provided those scammers tools to disseminate that fraud that may well have played a role in the success of the ploy. However, as in both Dyroff and Grindr, Meta’s tools were content neutral on their own—it was the scammers who chose to manipulate those tools for illicit ends.

The judge distinguishes his own simultaneous ruling in Bouck:

[in Bouck,] the plaintiffs averred that Meta contributed materially to the development of the ads by offering generative-AI tools that developed the ultimate content of the fraudulent ads. Meta’s role in that scheme, therefore, allegedly went beyond offering neutral tools that promoted content developed exclusively by the scammers—Meta, at least according to the complaint, was a genuine co-conspirator in the creation of the offending content. Plaintiffs have failed to aver a similar level of complicity here.

The court summarizes: “Section 230 thus bars any claim which, at bottom, seeks to hold Meta liable for the damage done by the content of the fraudulent ads.”

Case Citation: Suddeth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 810252 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2026)

The June Bouck Ruling

We’re back to the classic Ninth Circuit switcheroo: the arguments that the plaintiffs used to get around Section 230 ensure the failure of the prima facie case. Here, the plaintiffs alleged state law claims to redress what is fundamentally a federal securities law claim. The court summarizes:

Meta…argues that the theory which helped Plaintiffs defeat the first motion to dismiss compels granting the second. If it is true that Meta contributed to the creation of the fraudulent ads, then this suit is necessarily based on the falsity of Meta’s statements. A suit in which a plaintiff claims the defendant made false statements which led the plaintiff to purchase securities when he otherwise would not have is quintessentially one sounding in the securities laws, even if the right of action comes from state law. SLUSA prevents precisely that type of suit from being maintained in any court, state or federal….

At bottom, Plaintiffs are trying to have it both ways. They assert Meta’s misrepresentations aided and abetted the core fraud by pushing them into scam investment groups while simultaneously maintaining that those misrepresentations were not material to their decision to purchase CLEU stock. Both cannot be true—either the misrepresentations mattered (in which case SLUSA applies) or they did not (in which case their claims fail on the merits).

This denouement will surely attract less attention than the March ruling.

The plaintiff could in theory overcome this ruling by bringing a federal securities act claim. However, I suspect the plaintiffs won’t due to the significant pleading challenges. Plus, it will be difficult or impossible to put Facebook on the hook for those claims.

Case Citation: Bouck v. Meta Platforms Inc., 2026 WL 1697630 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2026)

BONUS: Daigneau v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Irving v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 2076112 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2026):

In two related cases, plaintiffs allege that they fell for “pump-and-dump” investment schemes, advertised on Facebook and Instagram and carried out in WhatsApp groups, where criminal networks operating out of China pressured them to purchase “penny stocks”—for Daigneau, Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. (“OST”) and for Irving, Jayud Global Logistics Ltd. (“JYD”)—while the scams’ orchestrators sold off their own shares. The plaintiffs all allege that with its advertising tools used to develop and target the fraudulent advertisements, Meta not only enabled and facilitated but also materially contributed to the scheme and is liable for the financial loss they suffered. This same scenario was alleged in Bouck et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (25-cv-5194-RS), a case recently dismissed by Hon. Richard Seeborg. Because plaintiffs seek to hold Meta liable for its role creating, optimizing, and targeting the scam advertisements “in connection with” plaintiffs’ purchase of securities, I agree with Judge Seeborg that their claims are barred under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998

The post Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to Generative AI Enhancements to Ad Copy (But the Plaintiffs Lose Anyway)–Bouck and Suddeth v. Meta appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Created by ChatGPT Jan. 2026

Censorship efforts tend to come in fads. Censors get fired up about a new censorship theory and try it out, but the experiment tends to not satisfy them (either because it’s struck down or doesn’t scratch their censorship itch enough) and they move onto the next censorship fad. Rinse and repeat.

Around 2020, a censorship fad was to impose common carriage obligations to restrict the editorial decision-making of Internet publishers. This fad triggered a lot of pointless conversations about 19th century technologies, such as railroads. The legal underpinnings of the fad were always obviously mockable, and most censors have already moved onto to newer censorship theories.

We’re still dealing with the detritus of the 2020ish common carriage fetishization. As one example, Ohio AG Yost sued Google claiming that Google search was a common carrier. This was always a stupid partisan lawsuit-stunt. Yet, even in the MAGA nirvana of Ohio, the lawsuit got no traction in court. Today, the Ohio appeals court unhesitatingly rejected the common carriage argument.

The court starts by observing that the legislature hasn’t spoken on this topic: “The General Assembly has not extended common carrier or public utility obligations to search engines or similar application-layer services.” Instead, the court says, there’s no carrying and no commoning taking place here.

There is No Carrying

“Google does not transport the unaltered property of others. It affirmatively creates a new expressive product, the SRP, through discretionary crawling, indexing, ranking, filtering, and formatting. This is curation and synthesis, not carriage.”

The court distinguishes search engines from telephones:

The State’s analogy to telephone service breaks down when one examines the actual flow of data. A user sends a query to Google; that query is a simple request consisting of the user’s own words or terms. Even assuming arguendo that Google has some common law duty to transmit the incoming query fairly and unaltered, the State’s complaint centers on the return leg – the SRP Google delivers back to the user.

That return data is not the user’s property, nor is it third-party content transmitted unaltered. Google receives the query, consults its own proprietary indices, applies its own ranking algorithms, makes relevance and quality judgments, filters results, and assembles a new, curated response that did not previously exist in that form. The SRP is Google’s own expressive product, not the user’s or any third party’s property being carried back unaltered. Traditional common carriers do not create the cargo they transport; they accept the shipper’s or speaker’s existing goods or message and deliver them substantially as received. Google does neither on the return leg.

There is No Commoning

The “common” part refers to the nondiscrimination obligations. The court is like, what are we even talking about…?

Even assuming for the sake of argument that Google’s Terms of Service would not, by themselves, justify refusing certain user inputs (queries), the Attorney General’s concern lies primarily with outputs – the ranking, presentation, and curation of search results.

At this point the common carrier doctrine encounters a fundamental mismatch. Traditional common carrier regulation centers on the relationship between price and service. Courts and regulators assess whether rates are just and reasonable. Google, however, provides its core search service to users at no direct charge. Its revenue comes overwhelmingly from advertising, not from the users whose results the State seeks to regulate. There is no traditional “rate” for the court to review or adjust. Scholarship in this area often concludes classic common carrier rate regulation is poorly suited to two-sided, zero-price-to-user, innovation-driven markets; any nondiscrimination obligation imposed here would necessarily target the content and ordering of outputs rather than prices, raising a distinct and more constitutionally sensitive set of issues.

Thus, even if one were to accept the State’s position that Google qualifies as a common carrier, fashioning an appropriate remedy would take this Court far outside the traditional judicial role in common carrier cases. The common law of common carriers does not supply a ready template for regulating the editorial output of a free service whose business model does not depend on user payments.

But Google is Big!

The court says: “There is no question that Google Search exerts enormous influence over the flow of information [but] it does not dispense with the common carrier doctrine’s two core requirements for judicial intervention.”

The court then extensively chastizes AG Yost for trying to legislate through litigation and reminds him of the proper role of judges. For example, it says “This Court will not accomplish by judicial fiat what the legislature has not chosen to do.” The court adds some mild benchslaps like:

It appears that the Attorney General singled out Google because of its monopoly-like status in this field. But ubiquity and market share do not justify novel judicial intervention here.

Federal preemption

“treating search engines as common carriers under state law would raise serious questions of conflict with federal communications policy.”

First Amendment

“The undisputed facts and the State’s legal arguments make clear that the core concern underlying this litigation is the regulation of Google’s editorial judgments in curating, ranking, and presenting information. This is, at bottom, an attempt to regulate speech.”

The court should have stopped talking there, but it didn’t:

We do not discount the legitimate policy concerns that animate the State’s position. Google’s dominant market position gives it outsized influence over the modern public square. Congressional investigations and disclosures regarding government-platform communications have raised serious questions about content moderation practices, viewpoint discrimination, and the influence of dominant technology platforms. [cite to Final Report: The Weaponization of the Federal Government, and that so gets a hard eyeroll from me.] These issues may indeed support a compelling governmental interest in narrowly tailored legislation designed to promote transparency or address demonstrable harms.

But the ancient common carrier doctrine is not the proper vehicle for addressing these concerns. Imposing common carrier obligations on Google’s search functions would necessarily compel the company to carry, rank, or display speech it would otherwise choose to de-emphasize or exclude — precisely the type of editorial discretion the First Amendment protects when exercised by private entities compiling and presenting third-party speech. [cite to Moody and Miami Herald v. Tornillo]

Conclusion

The court concludes:

Extending common carrier status here would not avoid First Amendment scrutiny; it would trigger it. Because Google’s search results are its own expressive product rather than neutral carriage, the common carrier doctrine does not fit this business model. Any broader regulatory response belongs to the legislative branch.

* * *

Among the many ways this opinion feels dated, there is a lot less emotional investment in Google’s blue organic links now that Google is highlighting AI overviews on its search results pages. Maybe we’ll get a round 2 of litigation claiming that the AI outputs should be treated like common carriers.

I don’t see how anyone who once jumped on the “Internet publishers are common carriers” bandwagon can read this opinion and not feel terrible about that position. This opinion is a thorough and persuasive rejection of the arguments.

Note that the court’s emphatic deference to the legislatures raises its own set of questions. We have seen many states enact terrible censorial legislation, including common carriage-like obligations in the Florida and Texas social media censorship laws. So I could easily see the Ohio legislature reading this opinion and responding “censorship challenge accepted!” Yet, the court opinion simultaneously makes it clear that the legislature doesn’t really have this authority. As the court also says, “Extending common carrier status here would not avoid First Amendment scrutiny; it would trigger it.” So for all of the opinion’s unnecessary digressions about legislative power, the opinion itself signals a huge flashing stoplight to legislatures considering whether they should jump on the fizzled common carriage fad.

Personnel note 1: This opinion was authored by Presiding Judge Andrew J. King, whose official bio says that “His prior public service includes serving as an…Attorney General for Dave Yost.” The opinion’s critiques of AG Yost’s censorial overreaches must sting a little harder when the author worked in his office.

Bloomberg Law also reports:

King is vying for the Republican nomination for one of two state Supreme Court seats up this year. A video he posted Monday on his campaign’s Facebook page described him as “the pro-Trump constitutional conservative”

AG Yost’s arguments couldn’t even sway a MAGA partisan seeking higher office. Sad!

Personnel note 2: Following an unsuccessful run for Ohio governor, Dave Yost recently stepped down as state AG. Per Wikipedia, he now has a leadership role in the “Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group.” [And that differs from the Ohio AG’s office how…? <rimshot>] The press release. With the change in leadership in the Ohio AG’s office, will that affect the office’s willingness to keep litigating this case? My guess is this lawsuit was Yost’s idiosyncratic quest and not worth further AG office investments now that he’s gone.

Prior Blog Posts on Common Carriage

• Google Search Isn’t a Common Carrier–Richards v. Google
• Ninth Circuit Deletes RNC’s Lawsuit Over Gmail’s Spam Filter–RNC v. Google
• Google Search Isn’t a “Common Carrier” (DUH)–Ohio v. Google
• Court Blows Up Gmail’s Section 230 Protection, But Allegations of Biased Spam Filtering Still Fail–Republican National Committee v. Google
• Statement on the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Moody v. NetChoice
• Section 230 Protects Gmail’s Spam Filter–RNC v. Google
• Is Google’s Search Engine a “Common Carrier”? (Seriously???)–Ohio ex rel Yost v. Google
• Big Ruling for Free Speech: Most of Florida’s Social Media Censorship Law (SB 7072) Remains Enjoined–NetChoice v. Attorney General
• Texas and Its Amici Try to Justify Censorship in Their NetChoice v. Paxton Fifth Circuit Briefs
• Court Enjoins Texas’ Attempt to Censor Social Media, and the Opinion Is a Major Development in Internet Law–NetChoice v. Paxton
• Anti-Zionist Loses Lawsuit Over Social Media Account Suspensions–Martillo v. Facebook
• Texas Enacts Social Media Censorship Law to Benefit Anti-Vaxxers & Spammers
• 31 Bogus Passages from Florida’s Defense of Its Censorship Law–NetChoice v. Moody
• Florida Hits a New Censorial Low in Internet Regulation (Comments on SB 7072)
• Deconstructing Justice Thomas’ Pro-Censorship Statement in Knight First Amendment v. Trump
• Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Alleged ‘Shadowbanning’–De Souza Millan v. Facebook
• Are Social Media Services “State Actors” or “Common Carriers”?

The post Google Search Isn’t a Common Carrier (duh)–Ohio v. Google appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.