Amazon Isn’t Liable for Selling Suicide “Kits”—McCarthy v. Amazon
This case involves the tragic suicide of two teenagers, both of whom died by consuming sodium nitrite they purchased from a third-party Amazon merchant (Loudwolf). Sodium nitrite has several socially beneficial commercial uses, including being used (in small quantities) as…
A Thumbs-Up Emoji Costs a Canadian Seller $82,000–South West Terminal v. Achter Land
[A special post for my Canadian friends as a belated celebration of Canada Day. 🍁] [DEC. 2024 UPDATE: see the appellate decision in this case.] This case involves a Canadian transaction for flax. The court summarizes: Mr. Mickleborough had a…
Test Buys Don’t Create Personal Jurisdiction Over Amazon Merchant–Oceanside v. Instock
Blogging personal jurisdiction cases isn’t that much fun for me. Nevertheless, this ruling caught my eye. This is an enforcement action over the trademark “Detoxify.” (I’m skipping the obvious trademarkability problems with a descriptive word like this). The defendant is…
Another Jawboning Case Fails in the Ninth Circuit–Kennedy v. Warren
This case involves a book called “The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal,” which includes a foreword from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sen. Warren wrote a letter to Amazon expressing “concerns” about…
Amazon Screws Up Its TOS Amendments (Again)–Jackson v. Amazon
This case involves “Amazon Flex” drivers. Allegedly, “Amazon monitored and wiretapped the drivers’ conversations when they communicated during off hours in closed Facebook groups.” Amazon claimed its TOS mandated arbitration. The Ninth Circuit disagrees. At issue are two versions of…
Do Mandatory Age Verification Laws Conflict with Biometric Privacy Laws?–Kuklinski v. Binance
California passed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) nominally to protect children’s privacy, but at the same time, the AADC requires businesses to do an age “assurance” of all their users, children and adults alike. (Age “assurance” requires the business…
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,…
My New Article on Abusive “Schedule A” IP Lawsuits Will Likely Leave You Angry
I’m pleased to share a draft of a new paper, “A SAD New Category of Abusive Intellectual Property Litigation.” The abstract: This paper describes a sophisticated but underreported system of mass-defendant intellectual property litigation called the “Schedule A Defendants Scheme”…
2022 Internet Law Year-in-Review
Three dynamics combined to make 2022 a brutal year for Internet Law. First, the techlash is taking its toll. There is widespread belief that the major incumbents are too big, too rich, and too capricious to avoid pervasive government control….
Section 230 Applies to NY Publicity Rights Claim–Ratermann v. Pierre Fabre
Patty Ratermann is a model. She signed a license with QuickFrame to use her likeness only on Instagram. Somehow (the court skips over exactly how), Pierre Fabre used her likeness to promote its Avène skincare products on its website, on…