Deleting Comments to County Facebook Page May Violate First Amendment–Davison v. Loudoun County
This is a case study on the problems that can arise when public records requirements meet modern forms of communications. On July 15, 2016, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors held a public meeting. One of the supervisors elected to…
Some Comments on the CA/TX Attorneys’ General Prosecution of Backpage’s Executives
By now I’m sure you’ve heard that California Attorney General Kamala Harris is prosecuting three Backpage executives for pimping/conspiracy to pimp. This is the latest–and perhaps last–development in a decade-long effort by legislators, state AGs and local prosecutors to shut…
An Interesting Online Personal Jurisdiction Ruling (No, Really!)–Rotblut v. Terrapinn
Yes, I know “interesting personal jurisdiction case” is an oxymoron, but hear me out. Jef Rotblut worked at UBO (he has apparently since changed employers) and claimed he “had an ‘excellent reputation and recognized expertise at developing risk[-]averse trading systems…
House Passes Consumer Review Fairness Act
Last night, the House passed the Consumer Review Fairness Act. The Senate passed the nearly identical Consumer Review Freedom Act back in December. I’ll discuss in a moment the minor variations between the two. Because of these differences, the Senate…
Ninth Circuit Criticizes Attempts to Plead Around Section 230–Kimzey v. Yelp
[Note: Venkat represented Yelp in this case but was not involved in the preparation of this post.] For all of the drama associated with Section 230 jurisprudence this year–including in the Ninth Circuit–it’s easy to forget that Section 230 still…
“Kurt The CyberGuy” Loses Publicity Rights Claims Against TV Station–CyberGuy v. KTLA
Knutsson was a technology reporter and creator of the “CyberGuy” persona. He worked for TV station KTLA between 1996 and 2011. In 2005, he entered into an agreement with KTLA to be paid an annual salary of $325,000 a year…
Anti-Robocall Statute Violates First Amendment–Gresham v. Rutledge
Arkansas has a statute that prohibits: use a telephone for the purpose of offering any goods or services for sale, or for conveying information regarding any goods or services for the purpose of soliciting the sale or purchase of the…
Unfortunate Expansion of ‘Failure to Warn’ Exception to Section 230–Beckman v. Match
You recall the Ninth Circuit’s Doe v. ModelMayhem (Doe #14 v. Internet Brands) ruling from earlier this year. It held that a website couldn’t invoke Section 230 against a claim that the site should have warned its users about potential…
The Internet Rallies Against A Terrible Section 230 Ruling–Hassell v. Bird
2016 has been a tough year for Section 230 jurisprudence, and the nadir (so far) was the appellate court ruling in Hassell v. Bird. As you recall, the case involves some negative Yelp reviews about an attorney, Hassell. Hassell sued…
Section 230 Immunizes Twitter From Liability For ISIS’s Terrorist Activities–Fields v. Twitter
Abu Zaid, an alleged “lone wolf,” killed two American contractors in Jordan. ISIS claimed responsibility for the deaths, but “Plaintiffs do not allege that ISIS recruited or communicated with Abu Zaid over Twitter, that ISIS or Abu Zaid used Twitter…