Microsoft Can Terminate User Account for Allegedly Possessing CSAM. But What If It Made a Mistake?–Deutsch v. Microsoft
The plaintiff (a NY lawyer/financial executive?) allegedly uploaded CSAM to his Microsoft OneDrive folder in violation of Microsoft’s “Code of Conduct.” [Nomenclature note: CSAM is what used to be called child porn; the case calls it CSEAI]. Allegedly, PhotoDNA detected…
Twitter Defeats Account Suspension Case–Craft v. Musk
The opinion summarizes the allegations: Defendants Twitter, Inc. and its CEO, Elon Musk, violated his First Amendment rights by blocking his Twitter account twice, for a period of seven days each, in February and March 2023. According to Plaintiff, he…
New Article: “The United States’ Approach to ‘Platform’ Regulation”
I’ve posted a new 5,000 word article, The United States’ Approach to “Platform” Regulation. The abstract: This paper summarizes the United States’ legal framework governing Internet “platforms” that publish third-party content. It highlights three key features of U.S. law: the…
Service Provider to a Ponzi Scheme Operation Qualifies for Section 230–Wiand v. ATC Brokers
[This opinion was issued 6 months ago, but it just showed up in my alerts.] This case involves an alleged Ponzi scheme involving foreign currency exchanges (“forex”). In addition to the direct participants in the scheme, the CFTC pursued Spotex,…
Services Aren’t Liable for Ignoring the DMCA’s 512(g) Counternotification Procedures–Hopson v. Google
This case involves a UGC anime site called Gelbooru, run by Hopson. Rightsowners sent DMCA takedown notices targeting the site to Google. (Lumen has many takedown notices containing the word “Gelbooru”). Google stripped out the notices’ identifying information and forwarded…
Section 230 Protects Emailing an Article–Monge v. University of Pennsylvania
This case involves an article that allegedly defamed Dr. Janet Monge. Dr. Deborah Thomas, a Penn professor, forwarded the article to an email list run by the American Black Anthropologists. Dr. Monge sued Dr. Thomas (and many other defendants). For…
Section 230 Protects BBB from Liability for Consumer Complaints–Amuze v. BBB
Amuze is an online clothing retailer. Consumers left negative reviews of Amuze at the Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland (BBB-GM) website. (This page?) Amuze sued BBB and BBB-GM for defamation and IIED. The BBB entities successfully invoked NY’s anti-SLAPP…
YouTube Defeats Trademark Lawsuit–Lops v. YouTube
Leonel Lops claims a trademark in the term “Confidence Empire” for shoes. He alleges that YouTube sold items under the “Confidence Empire” brand and published videos from a dance troupe named Confidence Empire (maybe this one?). He sued YouTube for…
Ripoff Report Gets a Pricey Lesson on Section 230–Selker v. Xcentric
I’ve blogged many Ripoff Report cases over the years, but it’s been a while since my last one (looks like 2018?). In this case, the plaintiff alleges that someone posted a false attack review; he paid Ripoff Report $2,500 to…
Quick Debrief on the Gonzalez v. Google Oral Arguments
I’m going to crank this blog post out before I get swamped with press requests. My takeaways: I did not hear 5 votes in favor of the plaintiffs’ position. Indeed, the justices didn’t really engage with the plaintiffs’ core arguments…