41 California Privacy Experts Urge Major Changes to the California Consumer Privacy Act

41 California privacy lawyers, professionals, and professors are urging the California legislature to make major changes to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which the legislature hastily passed in 2018. The letter highlights six significant problems with the CCPA, including:…

2H 2018 Quick Links, Part 6 (IP, E-Commerce, Censorship, & More)

Intellectual Property * Daniel v. FanDuel (Ind. Oct. 24, 2018): “online fantasy sports operators that condition entry to contests on payment and distribute cash prizes do not violate the Indiana right of publicity statute when those organizations use the names, pictures,…

Announcing the Fourth Edition of Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials by Tushnet & Goldman

Announcing the Fourth Edition of Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials by Tushnet & Goldman

Rebecca Tushnet and I are pleased to announce the publication of the fourth edition of our casebook, Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials. It is available for purchase in the following formats: * A DRM-free PDF file. Price: $12 *…

Best and Worst Internet Laws [Repost from Concurring Opinions’ Archive]

[In 2007, I guest-blogged at the group law professor blog Concurring Opinions. With the demise of that blog, I am now archiving my guest posts on my own blog. This post first appeared on February 15, 2007.] __ [Preface: I’ve already…

If Your Trademark Case Depends on Showing Initial Interest Confusion, Save Your Money--Select Comfort v. John Baxter

If Your Trademark Case Depends on Showing Initial Interest Confusion, Save Your Money–Select Comfort v. John Baxter

I’ve bashed the initial interest confusion doctrine for decades. It’s one of the worst doctrinal “innovations” in trademark law–ever. However, you might have noticed that I haven’t blogged many initial interest confusion cases recently. Why? Because the phrase rarely shows…

Another Gambling Case Over Online Virtual Coins Proceeds--Wilson v. Playtika

Another Gambling Case Over Online Virtual Coins Proceeds–Wilson v. Playtika

I blogged about Big Fish, who had a trip to the Ninth Circuit and was denied a bid to arbitrate claims against it based on its waiver of the right to arbitrate. As a follow up, I also blogged about…

The EU Anti-Geoblocking Regulation Becomes Effective Today (Guest Blog Post)

by guest blogger Marketa Trimble On December 3, 2018, the European Union’s Anti-Geoblocking Regulation enters into force. Its effects should be confined to the European Union’s internal market, yet the Regulation will also affect U.S. businesses serving customers in the European…

Failure-to-Warn Claim Against Match.com Fails–Beckman v. Match.com

The Ninth Circuit’s Doe 14 v. Internet Brands and Beckman v. Match.com rulings held that Section 230 immunity did not apply to failure-to-warn claims. Those rulings revived both cases and provided some encouragement to plaintiffs more generally. However, this hope…

Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive--FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

Starting in 2002 and continuing for about a decade, 1-800 Contacts systematically locked up many of its online contact lenses retail competitors into settlement agreements that prohibited the parties from bidding on each other’s trademarks at the search engines. Perhaps…

Gambling App Fails to Create Binding Terms of Service--Wilson v. Huuuge

Gambling App Fails to Create Binding Terms of Service–Wilson v. Huuuge

I’ve blogged about the Big Fish gambling case before Judge Leighton. He declined to order arbitration in that case, finding that Big Fish waived its right to arbitrate by extensively litigating the case. Judge Leighton is hearing some other similar…