__

Santa Clara Law to Offer New “D&D and the Law” Course

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct. 8, 2025—Santa Clara Law students will have the opportunity to “roll for their professional initiative” in a creative new course built around the popular role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. The course, titled “D&D and the Law,” will be offered for the first time in spring 2026.

In the one-unit course, students will go on D&D “quests” led by professional dungeon masters who will design and run the quests. The quests will simulate the experiences and tasks performed by lawyers, including how to:

• develop their professional skills and strengths
• assemble a diverse team
• communicate with and collaborate with other team members
• anticipate and solve problems
• craft and tell stories
• interpret the rules of the game and persuade an adjudicator (the dungeon master) to agree with their interpretations

For years, legal publications and blogs have expounded on the uncanny applicability of skills learned in Dungeons & Dragons to those needed to be a self-aware and effective lawyer, including imaginative problem-solving, soft-skill building, and collaboration, persuasion, and creativity.

The class will be taught by adjunct instructor Chris Ridder, an intellectual-property partner at Ridder, Costa & Johnstone LLP and a longtime D&D enthusiast.

“D&D’s fantasy world offers students a unique outlet for creative risk-taking and a fresh perspective on key lawyering skills,” said Ridder. “Great lawyers—and great D&D players—are storytellers who think on their feet, leverage complex rules, and succeed as a team.”

“For over a century, Santa Clara Law has been constantly innovating how to train lawyers who lead,” said Eric Goldman, associate dean for research and faculty sponsor of the course. “This course’s unique approach will provide students with a fun and pedagogically rich way to challenge their legal problem-solving and persuasion skills, and position themselves for career-long professional success.”

About Santa Clara University School of Law

Santa Clara University School of Law is dedicated to educating lawyers who lead with a commitment to excellence, ethics, and social justice. Santa Clara Law offers students an academically rigorous program including certificates in high-tech, international, public-interest and social-justice, privacy, and sports law, as well as numerous graduate and joint degree options. Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, Santa Clara Law is nationally distinguished for its faculty engagement, preparation for practice, and top-ranked programs in intellectual property and international law. For more information, see law.scu.edu.

Media Contact

Deborah Lohse | SCU Media Communications | dlohse@scu.edu | 408-554-5121

* * *

Coverage:

• The Recorder: “Conjuration, Divination … Litigation? Calif. Law School to Offer Dungeons & Dragons Law Course”
• r/LawSchool
• r/DungeonsAndDragons

The post If You Could Cast a Spell to Create a New Law School Course, What Would You Create? appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

If you’re an academic and would like a free evaluation PDF, email me. I can also share my presentation slides. You might also check out (1) my Internet Law course page, which includes 28 years of syllabi and old exams with sample answers, (2) my article on “Teaching Cyberlaw,” (3) my blog post on teaching Internet Law as an online-only course, and (4) my Canvas modules for my Fall 2021 online-only course (I can email my most current ones on request).

* * *

It has been a busy–and depressing–year for Internet Law, which led to a high number of changes to the book. Some of the most important changes this year:

Jurisdiction. Ever since I took the Step Two case out of the casebook, I’ve been unsure how to teach the personal jurisdiction topic. Last year’s casebook addition, AMB, was a fail. This year, I replaced the AMB case with the Ninth Circuit’s en banc ruling in Briskin v. Shopify. But the Briskin ruling is also a pedagogical mess, so I’m not sure how I’ll teach that case either.

Online Contracts. The Chabolla ruling, combined with the follow-on Godun ruling, are major precedents, so I added them to the book. Together, these rulings show how modern courts will apply exacting standards to every TOS formation detail; and if you aren’t using a “clickwrap,” your odds of TOS formation keep declining. I view pre-2025 TOS cases that upheld formation, especially for “sign-in-wraps,” as dubious precedent.

To make room for Chabolla and Godun, I reluctantly removed the Meyer v. Uber and Register.com opinions.

The Meyer v. Uber case was a good teaching case, but I’m dubious it’s still good law. After all, Uber’s TOS formation completely failed in Massachusetts, and Uber had to reimpose its TOS in Massachusetts and New York using a more rigorous “clickwrap” formation process. I am uncertain that the Uber’s mid-2010s-era TOS formation would survive today after Chabolla and Godun.

The Register.com ruling is an Internet Law chestnut that I enjoyed teaching for over 20 years. I took especial delight in mocking its apple stand analogy, and I blew students’ minds showing them how the court’s ruling didn’t mean that Verio was necessarily out of business. On the minus side, the opinion takes a long time to read and teach. Doctrinally, the case’s main payoff was to articulate the Restatements 69 contract formation workaround to standard TOS formation. However, Restatements 69 formation is a niche doctrine that has not found much traction in online contract formation in recent years, and it looks even more dubious post-Chabolla. Spending so much time on Restatements 69 gave students the misimpression that the workaround is more significant than it really is. I added a new casebook note about the Restatements 69 principle and will briefly teach the niche doctrine that way.

Because I took out Meyer and Register.com, I essentially rewrote the entire online contracts chapter. You can check out the rewritten chapter for free here.

Copyright Fair Use. The casebook includes a short note summarizing some basic fair use principles. To give students an illustration of those principles, for years, the book summarized the Google Books fair use ruling. However, I’ve lost confidence that the Google Books fair use ruling is still good law in light of the Generative AI fair use rulings this year. As a result, I removed the Google Books note and replaced it with the Griner v. King case on fair use and memes.

Keyword Advertising. The combination of the 1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker (2d Cir.) and Lerner & Rowe (9th Cir.) decisions were devastating to keyword advertising plaintiffs. The Lerner & Rowe ruling addresses all of the same doctrinal issues as the Network Automation case, but it’s a current, comprehensive, and clearly stated summation of the law, so I replaced Network Automation with it.

Child Safety/Pornography. I reluctantly added the Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision. It’s a long opinion that is replete with countless incidents of intellectual slipperiness, so it’s a terrible teaching case. I mean…let me know if you think you can articulate a principled justification for how the court decided that intermediate scrutiny applied (other than the obvious Calvinball explanation) and why it conducted its own intermediate scrutiny analysis de novo without asking the lower courts to do that work first. In addition to the edited opinion, I wrote 5,000+ words of notes and questions to highlight and contextualize the opinion’s many problems.

I also added a 2,000 word note about the Take It Down Act.

In total, this year I replaced 4 principal cases, added 2 new principal cases, added 10k+ words of new explanatory material, and rewrote the online contracts chapter. As the (purportedly) Chinese proverb says, may you live in interesting times.

* * *

Over the years, I’ve posted a number of book excerpts, including:

• The entire chapter on online contracts. The 2025 version is available. The chapter makes a nice module to supplement other courses with coverage of online contract formation.
• Primer on CCPA/CPRA (partially deprecated)
• Primer on FOSTA
• Primer on the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) (now deleted)
• Primer on Section 230
• Excerpt on right to be forgotten
• Excerpt on CFAA/Nosal/Power Ventures (now deleted)
• Excerpt on transborder content enforcement
• Excerpt on Brazil’s Marco Civil (now deleted)
• Excerpt on notes about UMG v. Shelter Capital

(Some of the freely available excerpts are dated, but every year I update everything still in the book).

As always, I invite your comments and questions.

* * *

Table of Contents

I. What is the Internet? Who Regulates It?
Overview
Noah v. AOL (E.D. Va.)
Determining the Geographic Location of Internet-Connected Devices

II. Jurisdiction
Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction
Briskin v. Shopify (9th Cir. en banc)

III. Contracts
Chabolla v. ClassPass (9th Cir.)
Godun v. JustAnswer (9th Cir.)
Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union (N.C. Sup. Ct.)

IV. Trespass/Computer Fraud & Abuse Act
Overview of Trespass to Chattels Doctrines
X v. Bright Data (N.D. Cal.)

V. Copyright
Copyright Basics (Copyright Office Circular 1)

Note About Fair Use
Griner v. King (8th Cir.)

Cartoon Network v. CSC (2d Cir.)
MGM Studios v. Grokster (Sup. Ct.)

Secondary Liability
Primer on Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement
Overview of Section 512(c)
UMG v. Shelter Capital (9th Cir. revised opinion)

Recap
Ticketmaster v. RMG

VI. Trademarks and Domain Names
Trademark FAQs
Trademark Glossary

A. Domain Names and Metatags
Lamparello v. Falwell (4th Cir.)
Promatek v. Equitrac (7th Cir.) Original Order and Revision

B. Search Engines
Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand & Shely (9th Cir.)

Tiffany v. eBay (2d Cir.)

VII. Content Regulation and Child Safety
Pornography Glossary
Moody v. NetChoice (U.S. Sup. Ct)
A Note on Congress’ Early Regulation of Online Pornography
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (U.S. Sup. Ct.)
A Note on the Take It Down Act

VIII. Defamation and Information Torts
Bauer v. Brinkman (Iowa Sup. Ct.)

47 U.S.C. §230
An Introduction to Section 230
A Note About FOSTA
Zeran v. America Online (4th Cir.)
Lemmon v. Snap (9th Cir.)

Twitter v. Taamneh (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

Top Myths About Content Moderation
Section 230 and Foreign Liability for Third-Party Content

IX. Privacy
Excerpts from 16 C.F.R. Part 312, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’s
Regulations
Overview of the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and State Consumer
Privacy Laws
In re. Pharmatrak (1st Cir.)

X. Spam

XI. Social Media
People v. Lopez (Cal. App. Ct.)
Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel (Cal. App. Ct.)

REVIEW QUESTION ANSWERS

The post Announcing the 2025 Edition of My Internet Law Casebook appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Excited to announce that SCU law is hiring both entry-level and lateral tenure stream faculty. See below for details about the scope of our search–it’s different. For maximum consideration, please submit materials via the portal as soon as possible, ideally before August 25, 2025. If you want to have a conversation prior to submitting, please reach out to Taylor Dalton (tdalton@scu.edu) Eric Goldman (egoldman@gmail.com), Sue Guan (sguan2@scu.edu), Michelle Oberman (moberman@scu.edu), or Zahr Said (zsaid@scu.edu)

__

The ad listing:

Santa Clara University School of Law welcomes applications from both entry-level and lateral tenure-track/tenured candidates. Ideal applicants will have a demonstrated record of scholarship and a rigorous research agenda that reflects a commitment to expertise and excellence in writing. Applicants also should have a demonstrated record of excellence as a teacher. Successful candidates will be expected to teach at least one first-year required or bar-tested subject.  We invite applications from candidates regardless of subject area expertise; our search is not restricted by topic or curricular fit.

We view this search as an opportunity to build out the doctrinal expertise and scholarly methodological approaches on our faculty, as well as pursuing larger institutional goals. Among these goals is our hope to hire cohorts of scholars tackling hard problems. As an illustrative example of a “hard problem” that could serve as the basis for a scholarly cluster, the committee might recruit a cohort of scholars working on problems associated with socio-economic inequality, broadly construed, and considered from different substantive and/or disciplinary perspectives. Their teaching portfolios would vary, but classes might include any first-year and bar-tested classes, and upper-level electives such as family law, immigration, and law & economics. Due to the dynamic nature of our thematic problems-based search, we encourage any candidate interested in SCU to apply; the socio-economic inequality example is purely illustrative rather than limiting.

SCU’s faculty is small, vibrant and committed. We seek colleagues who share our dedication to supporting the needs of our diverse student body and are excited about using their experience and leadership skills to strengthen our community and institution. To apply, please click through to our HR Portal: SCU Portal Link. Refer any questions to Michelle Oberman (moberman@scu.edu), committee chair.

Santa Clara University is a private, Jesuit, Catholic university offering its 8,800 students rigorous undergraduate curricula, master’s, Ph.D., and law degrees. SCU Law, one of the nation’s most diverse law schools, is dedicated to educating lawyers who lead with a commitment to excellence, ethics, and justice. Santa Clara Law offers its 700+ students an academically rigorous program, including certificates in high tech law, international law, privacy law, sports law, public interest law, as well as numerous joint degree options. Applicants are invited to visit the Law School’s website (https://law.scu.edu) for background on the Law School’s mission and scope of programs offered.

The post Apply To Become My Colleague! Santa Clara Law Is Hiring Tenure-Line Faculty appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

In this post, I’m going to talk about the blog’s future. I recognize that looking forward is an inherently optimistic act, because it assumes there is a future for our world, our country, the Internet, and me. To reach that conclusion, we must disregard many possible cataclysmic scenarios. For example, I’m assuming that in 10 years: the earth will still be habitable; there will still be an Internet worth blogging about; the censors will have not taken away my ability to blog; and I will not be jailed or executed for my acts of resistance or being Jewish. I hope all of these assumptions will be true in 2035, but there are no guarantees.

Subject to those caveats, my thoughts about the 10-year future of the blog.

I’ll Still Be Here. Blogging is a core part of my professional identity. I don’t see that changing for the rest of my career. So long as the Internet is still generating Internet Law, and so long as I have the legal and technical ability to comment on new Internet Law developments, I’ll be blogging about it.

Will I Still Have the Fighting Spirit? But will 66-year-old Eric be as feisty as I’ve historically been? This is a complex question.

Unquestionably, I was a little more freewheeling with my blogging in my 30s. Maturity and the barrage of legal threats I’ve received over the years have smoothed out some of my rougher edges. I’ll still speak truth to power and name names when necessary, but I don’t go looking for fights or intentionally stirring up trouble.

At the same time, as I’ve gotten more job security and more gray hairs, I’ve run out of fucks to give. I may be one of the few remaining OG from the 1990s still fighting for freedom of speech and innovation on the Internet, but I will keep doing so until my last breath.

And yet…I feel worn down. It is exhausting enough fighting for the Internet’s future, especially against the anti-empirical partisan attacks that I, as an academic, can’t meaningfully counter with rigorous academic approaches. For example, pretty much every U.S. regulator is prepared to slice up Section 230 for the wrong reasons. Any effort to rebut their underinformed criticisms through logic or facts stands no chance.

On top of all that, some of my efforts to protect the Internet are being redirected into the fight for our republic against those who are actively seeking to turn it into an autocracy.

The erosion of the rule of law has prompted me to question everything about the scope of my blogging. It seems silly to chronicle the finer details of Internet Law if all law, including Internet Law, becomes Calvinball. In other words, this blog has always assumed a baseline adherence to the rule of law. If that baseline degrades or goes away, what am I blogging about? (For more on this, see Techdirt’s post, “Why Techdirt Is Now A Democracy Blog (Whether We Like It Or Not).“).

The TikTok ban provides a good example of why I’m questioning everything about my blog in the Calvinball era of Internet Law. Congress’ statutory ban was misguided and counterproductive; the Supreme Court accepted Congress’ national security pretext way too credulously; Biden and Trump both disregarded the law; and Congress shrugged its shoulders at the administration’s dereliction. How am I supposed to teach my students about the meaning of any national security exception to the First Amendment in light of these developments?

AND THEN, we got even more damning proof that the TikTok ban’s national security justification was a farce. In the Trump 2.0 era, the U.S. Government clearly poses a far greater and more immediate threat to its citizens’ data security than any foreign government. (Some examples of the Trump 2.0 national security threats: E.g., DOGE’s data heists that Trump admits is because “we don’t have very good security in this country;” the Director of National Intelligence reluctantly admits that the US is compiling massive dossiers on its citizens for undisclosed purposes; immigration officials are mining social media to find reasons to deport people without due process for their lawful and constititionally protected speech; and the war boys freely banter about classified and highly sensitive Houthi attack plans on Signal, using vulnerable devices and looping a reporter into the conversation). Any national security threat from TikTok seems de minimis by comparison. In other words, the most important “national security” calls are coming from inside the house, not from China, and our government is the most important threat vector we all need to worry about.

The TikTok ban feels like such a jump-the-shark moment for Internet Law. If there is no legitimate justification for the TikTok ban, and if our government institutions are disregarding a law the Supreme Court has declared constitutional, what exactly is the “law” of TikTok I should be covering on this blog or teaching to my Internet Law students?

In light of the underlying across-the-board erosion of the rule of law, there’s a lot to worry about before I even get to the Calvinball era of Interent Law. I still care passionately about the Internet, but my supply of rage and opposition may have a lifetime cap. How much will be left in my tank 10 years from now?

The Comment Section Will Be Turned Off. We are almost at the end of the user-generated content era. The regulators have already doomed it, and the upcoming crop of Internet Laws over the next couple of years will be the coup de grâce. We’ve already seen the Internet shrink dramatically in response to recent regulatory interventions, such as the UK Online Safety bill. The UGC shrinkage will keep accelerating.

My blog is a UGC site in two ways. First, I am UGC to my blog host (another shoutout to Justia for their wonderful support over the years) and the host’s vendors, like AWS (which has received repeated complaints about my blog specifically). Will Justia and AWS still tolerate my content if their legal protections fade? If not, can I find replacement vendors?

I also am a UGC site in that I permit readers to post comments. I value my readers’ comments, but I don’t want to take legal responsibility for them. Without Section 230, and in the face of a tsunami of new state laws imposing onerous obligations on UGC sites, I will be burdened with increasing legal risks and obligations for allowing readers to comment. Rather than navigate that gauntlet, I’ll turn off comments entirely. Within 10 years, that outcome seems inevitable. [Note: This blog didn’t have any comment function from 2006 to 2013. “What’s past is prologue.”]

The Ads Will Be Turned Off. I rolled out Google AdSense for the blog in 2005, shortly after the blog launch. The money was OK, but mostly I wanted first-hand experience in the advertising ecosystem to improve my knowledge of the field.

Twenty years later, I’m still in the AdSense program, but barely. Over time, Google has had difficulty monetizing blogs like mine, so the program’s economics have collapsed. Google’s ads became more intrusive to boost Google’s revenues, but this didn’t trickle down to me. At the peak, I used to earn over $600 per year. That number drifted down to about $300/yr, when I finally turned off Google’s ability to create new ad slots on my page (which interfered with readers’ experiences, and I repeatedly got complaints about advertiser sketchiness). Now that I only have limited ad slots on each page, I make like 30 cents a day, or about $100 per year. Barely enough to get a single meal of burger and fries (and alcohol) at the Newark airport.

Worse, this de minimis ad revenue increases my legal risk. So long as I have any ads, a plaintiff or regulator can assert that I run a “commercial” website that subjects me to heightened legal obligations or reduced legal defenses. For example, my blog might have a degraded fair use position due to its purported commerciality (it shouldn’t, but the judge decides). With so little revenue at stake, those risks aren’t worth it.

I trust you detect a theme: despite my overall privilege as a tenured law professor, my blog is extremely vulnerable to regulatory risks. Comments and ads might both go offline due to those risks; and my blog itself could be tossed into the void by my blog host or its vendors. This is a microcosm of the broader threats facing the blogger ecosystem and all UGC ecosystems.

What Topics Will Be Left to Discuss? What will Internet Law look like in 10 years? I assume Section 230 will be long-gone by then, so every lawsuit over UGC will become a protracted First Amendment lawsuit. I’ll blog those cases, and that litigation genre could still be going strong in 2035.

Otherwise, I think we’ll still see standard e-commerce legal developments in 2035, even if online marketplaces are gone by then. My syllabus and this blog already cover many of these topics: contract formation, trespass to chattels, copyright, trademark, privacy. In 2035, I will also probably be talking more about AI, assuming it isn’t also extinct due to overregulation. I imagine I also will be sharing war stories about the “glory days,” explaining the Internet Law problems we’d once solved and the Internet benefits we’ve lost over the years. Just like their bafflement about how telephones used to work, the younger generations will have no idea about what the Internet was like for their elders.

Assuming everything goes well enough that we can still have the conversation, I’ll revisit this post in 2035 and see what I got right and wrong. I hope you’ll still be along for the ride then. Thank you for reading this blog now and, I hope, into our indefinite and uncertain future.

__

Coverage of the 20 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Celebrating the Blog’s 20th Blogiversary
Part 2: How Has the Blog Changed Over the Past 20 Years?
Part 3: Who Reads the Blog, and Why?
Part 4: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes
Part 5: How the Blog Helps Readers
Part 6: Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 7: Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 8: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Part 9: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years
Part 10: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years?

Coverage of the 10 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary!
Part 2: The Blog’s Impact
Part 3: The Blogosphere’s Evolution
Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP Law
Bonus: A Video Interview About the Blog

The post Blogiversary: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years? (Part 10 of 10) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

__

“I’m definitely online more. I didn’t even have a cell phone 20 years ago, and definitely not a smart phone. I still use desktop more than mobile and don’t see that changing. I didn’t use much social media 20 years ago – and still only primarily use 1 (BlueSky) for personal. And really only LinkedIn for professional – and that’s barely. I follow (via social and blogs) more independent journalists than I did then – I may not have followed any journalists in 2004. I’m still trying to find the right balance of information vs sanity.”

__

“As a writer and journalist it is so much easier to search online for information from all over the world and sift through it, instead of relying on libraries and snail mail.”

__

“I download and backup and store more information than I know what to do with, as I think the Governments will remove the good stuff and I want to keep it around for me.  Videos, Text, Audio…”

__

“Very little. 90% of it comes from RSS and SSRN, and I try to keep it that way. I don’t read Twitter, and occasionally I find new articles posted on Facebook, but I rarely read them. Who has time?”

__

“I used to read print copies of the USPQ cases and BNA publications. Then I went through a phase where I suppose I looked closely at all of the reports coming by email relating to the topics of interest to my practice.  Now, for work, I mostly read your blog and the TTABlog (by John Welch) as I find both informative and also have a bit of sass/opinion to them that makes them really interesting and fun to read.  I skim Law360 but sometimes that includes a bunch of junk that is worthy of NY Post Page 6 and I only pick out and read the full stories on the blurbs directly related to topics I follow. I read the NYT but have post-election focused on the puzzle page for my own mental health. I cancelled the Washington Post before the election but am not sure if that was the right thing to do. I love the Atlantic. I used to always read the New Yorker magazine (or at least flip through each week) but my son has taken the magazine initially when it comes in the mail and I don’t get it until later and now it’s piling up.  I try not to get on Facebook/Instagram or other such sites in my downtime; I do gravitate towards Reddit from time to time where l like to find posts that confirm my opinions about entertainment content (e.g. a particular character in a series is really annoying or the plot took a nosedive).  This is all probably TMI!”

__

“The biggest change over the past few years has been that I trust online search engines less and less. I remember back in law school legal practice class, students were told not to use Google, not because it was inaccurate, but because you can find accurate answers way too quickly and easily. At the time, such teaching seemed bad/insincere, but in retrospect I’m glad we were given a chance to learn how to do research without overly relying on Google Search.”

__

“Not too much, but since there is more and more info to read and digest one need to have trusted sources and yours is the one.”

__

“I am much more likely to pay for subscriptions to gain access to and support sites I perceive as worthy and trustworthy.”

__

“Creating an account is now an act of last resort for me. Like personal possessions, the more I can minimize my online footprint, the better for me. I was finally the recipient of a breach notice from a health insurance company used by a firm I no longer worked for and which my previous employer hadn’t used for several years. Frustratingly, my account (in a non-digital sense) had aged past their data retention period but they had failed to delete some volume of records related to me. Of course, the person on the phone couldn’t explain why, because the insurance company had contracted all the cleanup and comms work to some other firm with a call center. I’d meant to document and relay all this to my state AG, though I’m sure his office is busy with other, more political pursuits (which Todd Rokita has been somewhat infamous for).

I guess that whole anecdote leads me to see a parallel in personal life compared to professional: in IT security, there’s a concept of “assume breach” that we use to aid in analysis of how to protect information assets once someone does intrude on a network. For the average consumer, we all effectively must now  “assume breach,” that a credit bureau or insurer is going to fail to protect our information, and that we have little recourse once it happens in the sense that there’s no preventing the sale and exploit of our information once a breach has occurred. Following advice from Brian Krebs (a tech journalist, though I no longer read his blog after his refusal to issue a retraction after misattributing a hack to a couple individuals), I’ve learned to “stake my claim” to various Web properties like credit bureau sites and state/federal IRS to limit abuse of my personal identifiers when they are inevitably compromised.

In the past 20 years, but more so recently, it’s become evident that we need personal, mental “circuit breakers” in our information consumption to help break loops so we can stop and consider whether this is a good use of my time, how is this information affecting me, are there any warning signs in what I’ve consumed that might affect the trustworthiness or credibility of the source/authors.”

* * *

My thoughts about how I have changed my information consumption practices over the decades.

First, I used to read a dead-trees printed general circulation newspaper every day. In 2005, that would have been the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. It was a key morning ritual: breakfast and the paper.

When we moved to California, we subscribed to the San Jose Mercury-News print edition. I don’t remember when we abandoned that subscription…maybe 2015? The Mercury-News adopted terrible billing practices where they auto-renewed subscriptions at massively inflated prices (I think it was $800/yr?). They also played enshittification games. The paper added “bonus” materials that I didn’t ask for or want, and then they unilaterally credited our annual fee for their self-determined cost of the unrequested supplements. We wouldn’t notice the extra charges because the paper silently shortened our subscription term. It was ridiculous and predatory. The cost-benefit eventually made no sense as the paper kept shrinking and increasingly just reprinted syndication stories I had already seen online. I do miss my ritual of reading the dead-trees paper in the morning, but it was resource-wasteful and the subscription options today aren’t credible.

[Note: through the university, I have digital subscriptions to the Mercury-News, the NY Times, and the Wall Street Journal. I also use CNN as a primary news source.]

Second, I used to subscribe to many dead-trees printed magazines. I had some subscriptions delivered to my home. For many other magazines, the school library would circulate the table of contents or full issue for my perusal. These subscriptions were an essential part of my knowledgebase, and I custom-crafted a portfolio of information resources that gave me a knowledge edge over my “competition.” I have no remaining magazine subscriptions, though I still get printed magazines from various membership groups (but those magazines have shrunk dramatically over the years).

Third, I used to rely heavily on various email lists for discovering news items and grokking the meaning of those developments. I am still on some email lists (such as IPProfs and CyberProfs), but their utility as an information resource has declined sharply. I delete most email list postings unread, and I don’t invest much energy in initiating discussions at those groups (unlike the 1990s, when I was quite active–of course, that was pre-blog).

Fourth, I started using RSS seriously around the time the blog launched. I still love RSS, and I’m still disappointed it never became a defining information delivery vehicle of the Internet. RSS remains a key part of my “secret sauce” as a blogger. It lets me consume a broader and more diverse portfolio of sources than I would without it, and I can spot news items that get overlooked by others. I keep evangelizing RSS to my GenZ students because it’s actually the information tool they always wanted. The students want to keep up-to-date, but only from the sources they care about, and without the algorithmic sorting and prioritization of social media. HELLO, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT RSS DOES! Google Reader was my cherished RSS reader. After its demise, I switched to Feedly, and the Feedly tab is permanently open in my browser.

Fifth, since 2005, social media has waxed and waned in my information diet. I used Twitter and Facebook extensively over the years. In its halcyon days, Twitter became a primary information source. I read tweets in reverse chronological order (not using the algorithm), so I only saw the posts I wanted to see. It has been heartbreaking to witness Twitter’s demise, and I haven’t been able to fully backfill it. Facebook has always been a mixed bag for me, but it’s now in my social media junkheap alongside Twitter.

So, at this very moment, my primary digital information sources are:

• Email. I tell everyone: email is always the best way to reach me. I receive many email list posts, email newsletters, and email alerts.
• RSS. I have about 130 subscriptions in Feedly, including the San Jose Mercury-News and several other general newspapers.
• Bluesky is my primary social media, especially for getting a news zeitgeist. I also have LinkedIn, Facebook, and Mastodon bookmarked. I visit LinkedIn a few times a day and Facebook/Mastodon about 1x/day.
• CNN is my primary news resources that I affirmatively visit. I typically check CNN once a day.

__

Coverage of the 20 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Celebrating the Blog’s 20th Blogiversary
Part 2: How Has the Blog Changed Over the Past 20 Years?
Part 3: Who Reads the Blog, and Why?
Part 4: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes
Part 5: How the Blog Helps Readers
Part 6: Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 7: Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 8: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Part 9: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years
Part 10: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years?

Coverage of the 10 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary!
Part 2: The Blog’s Impact
Part 3: The Blogosphere’s Evolution
Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP Law
Bonus: A Video Interview About the Blog

The post Blogiversary: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years (Part 9 of 10) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

As it turns out, about 20% of the blog posts have been made by guest bloggers. The bulk of those came from Venkat, with nearly 800 posts.

Here’s an incomplete roster of about 70 guest bloggers who have published here over the past 20 years (I’m sure I’m missing some folks–email me with corrections):

• Tsan Abrahamson
• Ethan Ackerman
• Elliott Alderman
• Venkat Balasubramani
• Prof. Jane Bambauer (now at University of Florida)
• Prof. Mark Bartholomew (Buffalo Law)
• Sam Bayard
• Prof. Samuel Becher (Victoria University of Wellington)
• Mark Bender
• Jeff Breinholt
• Madeline Brewer
• Ed Cavazos
• Prof. Margaret Chon (Seattle U. Law)
• Nyssa Chopra
• Prof. Stephen Diamond (Santa Clara Law)
• Prof. Christine Haight Farley (American University)
• Philip Favro
• Tanya Forsheit
• Prof. Elizabeth Townsend Gard (Tulane Law)
• Cary Glynn
• Prof. Deborah Gerhardt (North Carolina Law)
• Kyle Graham
• Franklin Graves
• Prof. Leah Chan Grinvald (now at UNLV Law)
• Prof. Christian Helmers (Santa Clara University)
• Prof. Laura Heymann (William & Mary Law)
• Jeffrey Hunt
• Angie Jin
• Josh King
• Jonathan Klinger
• Prof. Jeff Kosseff (U.S. Naval Academy)
• Prof. Stacey Lantagne (now of Western New England Law)
• Prof. Christa Laser (Cleveland State Law)
• Prof. Yassine Lefouili (Toulouse School of Economics)
• David Levine (Elon Law)
• Yoram Lichtenstein
• Prof. Yvette Joy Liebesman (St. Louis Law)
• Marcel Leonardi
• Prof. Brian Love (Santa Clara Law)
• Prof. Glynn Lunney (Texas A&M Law)
• Kieran McCarthy
• Prof. J. Thomas McCarthy (USF Law emeritus)
• Luke McDonagh
• Jake McGowan
• Prof. Mark McKenna (now at UCLA Law)
• Paul Mersino
• Pablo García Mexía
• Prof. Jess Miers (now at Akron Law)
• Prof. Russell A. Miller (Washington & Lee Law)
• Sydney Muray
• Dan Nabel
• Prof. Tyler Ochoa (Santa Clara Law)
• John Ottaviani
• Dr. Matthias Pendl (Max Planck)
• Prof. Aaron Perzanowski (Michigan Law)
• Bilyana Petkova
• Riana Pfefferkorn
• Prof. Lisa Ramsey (USD Law)
• Prof. Alexandra J. Roberts (now at Northeastern Law)
• Prof. Guy Rub (now at Rutgers Law)
• Prof. Sharon Sandeen (Mitchell Hamline)
• Prof. Mark Schultz (now at Akron Law)
• David Silverman
• Prof. Marketa Trimble (UNLV Law)
• Lourdes Turrecha
• Rachel Lassig Wertheimer
• Heather Whitney
• Prof. Alex Yelderman/Alex Levy (now at Jacksonville Law)
• Sruli Yellin
• Prof. Sonya Ziaja (now at Baltimore Law)
• Gabriella Ziccarelli

This is an all-star roster of contributors. I’m proud and honored to have shared their works here.

[Note 1: all guest bloggers do it purely for the glory. No cash. Not even any blog schwag.]

[Note 2: I’ve had a few other guest bloggers at my personal blog, including Prof. Colleen Chien (UC Berkeley Law), Scott Moss, my wife Lisa, and my son Jacob.]

If you’re wondering how you can join this list…many of these guest bloggers emailed me with a pitch, sometimes cold. I’m always happy to have the conversation!

* * *

I asked guest bloggers to weigh in on their experiences. Some responses:

From Alex Roberts:

My experience guest-blogging has been tremendously valuable for me—it offers all the fun of writing posts about interesting cases without any of the responsibility of running, hosting, or publishing a blog. Eric’s emails inviting me to guest-post always either center on a case I was aware of and already obsessing over, or a case that wasn’t on my radar but should have been. Even better, posting has enabled me to think through a doctrine (like failure to function) or category of cases (like tagmark litigation) that I was already pondering, setting the initial groundwork for what would become a more extended study in the form of a law review article or essay. Other times, I’m already exploring a particular topic in my research and posting about a recent decision gives me the opportunity to summarize and provide a teaser of that research. In other instances, I’ve recently published an article and the new case represents a subsequent development that illustrates a point I’ve made or bears out a development I predicted, making it a great follow-up to the longer piece.

Eric is insanely productive, remarkably on top of legal developments, and somehow maintains an awareness of what his colleagues in the field are interested in and writing about at any given time.  The blog is a consistent reflection of that knowledge, investment, and hard work. I am so grateful to be part of the blog and the community he has fostered!

From Kieran McCarthy:

This blog has given me a creative and intellectual outlet I would have never thought possible in the law. The law is typically a very hierarchical profession. And for someone of Eric’s stature to share his platform with someone like me is a rare opportunity that I deeply appreciate.

I was originally drawn to this blog because historically, it was the only source of decent analysis on trespass to chattels, web-scraping, and data-access issues. For years, I followed the blog like everyone else because I had clients in the space, and Eric and Venkat were the only people I could find online that were covering the issues consistently and intelligently.

And then in 2020, there was a particularly wonky 11th Circuit web-scraping case that Eric did not cover. At first, I was a little annoyed. Doesn’t he know how important this is?!?!!!? And then I thought to myself, if it’s so important, maybe I could write about it myself. I sent Eric an email asking if he’d mind a guest post. And I’ve been writing about those types of cases and issues here ever since.

When I first went to college nearly 30 years ago, I thought I wanted to be a philosophy professor. It took me one academic philosophy conference to realize that was not going to work out for me. But I still like to wax philosophically on topics of interest, albeit in a less rigorous, more informal setting. This blog gives me the perfect platform to share what I know and care about with a very smart and informed audience. I am eternally grateful for that opportunity.

[Eric’s comment: because of my philosophic waxings here, my wife calls my blog the “blah…”]

From Lisa Ramsey:

I was honored when Eric Goldman first asked me to write a guest blog post about the Federal Circuit’s decision in the case In re Elster in 2022. Since that time, Eric has invited me to write (or allowed me to write) other guest blog posts about cases involving potential conflicts between trademark laws and the right to freedom of expression. Given the large number of readers of the blog, this was a great opportunity for me to share my ideas with others who work in the intellectual property law area. It was also nice to have a place to immediately share my thoughts about the US Supreme Court oral argument and decisions in Elster and Jack Daniel’s: Guest Blog Post, Heightened Constitutional Scrutiny is Not Required for Content-Based Trademark Registration Laws that are Viewpoint-Neutral–Vidal v. Elster, Technology & Marketing Law Blog (June 27, 2024); Guest Blog Post, Evaluating the Constitutionality of Viewpoint-Neutral Trademark Registration Laws That Do Not Restrict Speech–Vidal v. Elster, Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Nov. 27, 2023); Guest Blog Post, Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, Technology & Marketing Law Blog (June 21, 2023); Guest Blog Post, The First Amendment Limits Trademark Rights, But How? – Jack Daniel’s v. Bad Spaniels, Technology & Marketing Law Blog (April 3, 2023); Guest Blog Post, Trademark Registration of Political Messages for Expressive Merchandise-In re Elster, Technology & Marketing Law Blog (March 4, 2022)

From Yvette Joy Liebesman:

You and your Technology & Marketing Law blog have become an amazing resource for me and my students. Your encouragement, enthusiasm, engagement, and mentorship has propelled me and many others to become better scholars.

You welcome voices other than your own, and often have open invitations to post our thoughts on current Advertising/Marketing/IP/internet topics. Many single-owner law blogs do not afford such opportunities.  About 15 years ago, you published the first of two guest blogs from me, and I hope to avail myself of more in the future.  You truly have created a welcome avenue to discuss relevant issues of the day.

From Tyler Ochoa:

Many years ago, I considered starting a blog about copyright law, and I asked Eric for his advice about his experience. The number of hours he put in was daunting, and his candid advice was sufficient to deter me from starting something I could not consistently do well. But he kindly offered me the opportunity to start by contributing guest posts to his blog, so I could see what the experience was like without having to create (or re-create) the initial infrastructure. Guest blogging has been a fabulous opportunity for me: I get to opine occasionally on some of the important copyright and ROP issues of the day, to a guaranteed audience of interested professionals, without having to generate enough posts to maintain a blog and an audience of my own. And it serves as a handy resource to preserve my initial thoughts about a problem for later use. Just one example: my three-part monster posts on the Music Modernization Act of 2018. I had to read the legislation carefully in order to update the treatise and the casebook; but by blogging it, I could preserve my careful analysis for later use in both, while at the same time serving as a resource for informing others. Whenever I am confronted with an issue concerning the MMA, the first thing I do is to retrieve the relevant post(s), so I can quickly bring myself back up to speed.

I have now contributed 43 guest posts to the blog (about 3 or 4 per year in recent years). A great big “thank you” to Eric for providing the public forum. I trust from his kind comments over the years that it is a win-win opportunity for both of us.

[Eric’s comment: it is indeed a win for me and for blog readers when Tyler contributes. His posts are routinely among the most popular on the blog.]

__

Coverage of the 20 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Celebrating the Blog’s 20th Blogiversary
Part 2: How Has the Blog Changed Over the Past 20 Years?
Part 3: Who Reads the Blog, and Why?
Part 4: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes
Part 5: How the Blog Helps Readers
Part 6: Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 7: Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 8: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Part 9: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years
Part 10: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years?

Coverage of the 10 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary!
Part 2: The Blog’s Impact
Part 3: The Blogosphere’s Evolution
Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP Law
Bonus: A Video Interview About the Blog

The post Blogiversary: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Part 8 of 10) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

In the early oughts (zeros?)–right around Y2K, the .com crash and 9/11–the ‘series of tubes’ that was the Internet was, while still a somewhat newish/fad-ish thing for a lot of attorneys and law schools, impacting significant parts of even offline legal life. It wasn’t going away, and it wasn’t just a bunch of manually scratched together HTML pages, either.

At law schools, the students were still in the very first cohort of people who had access to PCs during college, and many of them still relied on school computer labs for access to a computer/printer. Law schools might have a website page for prospective students, but Law School blogs and law professor blogs were still an exception, not a rule.

As a work-study funded effort, and because I was the only work study student who said ‘yes I had made a web page’ before, I was asked to help get a (then- rudimentary) legal blog online for the University of Washington’s new Center for Law, Commerce, and Technology.

As I intermittently continued to help that blog after my graduation, one of my now former professors suggested that I should try and keep track of the work of, or maybe even reach out and contact, Eric Goldman at Marquette, who “is doing that, and doing it well.”

I did follow Eric’s work at Marquette – and eventually even reached out around the time he moved to Santa Clara. Eric graciously responded to emails from a recent law student graduate from a school other than his own, and we periodically corresponded about new legal cases, or spam case developments following an amicus spam brief I had worked on as a UW student, etc. At the time, the law professor networks were still mostly over email listservs and just transitioning to the web, and quite a few email lists were professor-only, so corresponding with … former students … at other schools… was somewhat of an outlier. After he formally started it, Eric’s blog was immediately something I followed and soon enough commented on/corresponded about.

While that now sounds very academia, from the start, a lot of Eric’s posts drew the attention of practitioners beyond just the academic blawgosphere. And it was actually a few years after my graduation, as an actual (but baby) practitioner, that I was able to contribute most of my guest and joint posts to his blog.

Especially for an under-/briefly un- employed law student graduating into the economic recession following 9/11, blogging in professionally rigorous ways about actual internet cases was professionally a no-brainer. But it was, like Eric still says, a lot of fun. It was talking (sometimes talking snark) about the cool things on the Internet we cared about, and if we were lucky, worked on in our day jobs. I’m actually proud, and consider it probably one of my biggest professional accomplishments, that I can say I have read about my own cases on Eric’s blog as far back as 2005 and as recently as 2025.

My contributions to the blog took a very hard cut‐off when I joined my present employer (with its understandable but rigorous Law Firm prohibition on outside blogging), but the reading continues to this day… and I’m glad that I could put a little bit of my love into what is so clearly Eric’s labor of love.

Thank you for blogging.

(Ethan Ackerman is Of Counsel at Morgan Lewis, in the firm’s DC office, where he serves in the firm’s electronic discovery practice. Before that, he served as Legislative Counsel to a US senator, advising on turn-of-the-century digital laws such as CAN-SPAM, the Do Not Call implementation Act, DMCA revisions, the legislative enactment of the 2005 amendments to the FRCP, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, among others. In 2002, he graduated from the University of Washington School of Law.)

__

Coverage of the 20 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Celebrating the Blog’s 20th Blogiversary
Part 2: How Has the Blog Changed Over the Past 20 Years?
Part 3: Who Reads the Blog, and Why?
Part 4: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes
Part 5: How the Blog Helps Readers
Part 6: Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 7: Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 8: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Part 9: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years
Part 10: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years?

Coverage of the 10 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary!
Part 2: The Blog’s Impact
Part 3: The Blogosphere’s Evolution
Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP Law
Bonus: A Video Interview About the Blog

The post Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary (Part 7 of 10) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

__

My name is Jess Miers, and I am a legal academic and a passionate advocate for the Internet. The blog holds a profoundly special place in my life for countless reasons, most notably because it dramatically altered the course of my career. As an avid reader, contributor, and self-proclaimed ‘superfan,’ I have witnessed firsthand how transformative this resource can be.

My engagement with the blog began at the age of 21, during my senior year in college. As graduation approached, I felt increasingly uncertain about my future. Although I had chosen to major in Computer Science due to my love of technology—dating back to my first experiences with a computer at age 4—programming alone did not fulfill my ambitions. This realization was unsettling, given the trajectory I saw my career taking.

In search of clarity, I enrolled in a Computer Ethics and Law course in my final semester. It was here that I first encountered the complexities of Section 230 through the landmark case, Reno v. ACLU. My final paper on Section 230 and child online privacy laws led me to a pivotal resource: the blog. What began as academic necessity soon turned into a passion, as I delved deeper into the blog’s contents for fun.

The turning point came the summer after my graduation. Working as a software engineer for a defense contractor—a role I found deeply unsatisfying—I sought solace in the blog on quieter days, especially from its articles on Section 230. My fascination with the First Amendment and the Internet deepened, and it was during one reflective evening in a dimly lit office cubicle in DC that I decided to change my life’s direction. Inspired by an article that shifted my entire perspective on Internet regulation, I resolved to leave my job, enroll in law school, and specialize as an Internet lawyer with a focus on intermediary liability.

Throughout law school, the blog was not just a supplement to my education—it was a cornerstone. As I revisited articles with a more discerning eye, I gained a deeper understanding of the nuances that had previously eluded my undergraduate self. This intellectual curiosity distinguished me from my peers and facilitated engaging discussions with technology law experts at various student networking events. By my third year, I even had the honor of guest-writing for the blog, which provided me with unparalleled credibility and opened doors to once-unimaginable opportunities in the tech industry.

Early in my career, I quickly became recognized as an expert on Section 230 and a knowledgeable enthusiast of the blog itself. Colleagues often sought my insights, asking, “Has Eric covered this?” I could reliably provide the necessary articles, which were then transformed into legal briefs, talking points, and documents for policymakers.

As my career progressed, my engagement with the blog sharpened, watching for articles and updates crucial for my work in legal and tech policy. In the swiftly changing realm of technology policy, there is no time to sift through lengthy judicial decisions or intricate legislative proposals. The blog’s succinct and accurate analysis proved invaluable, empowering me to efficiently prepare for significant discussions and testimonies. This was especially important as, over recent years, both federal and state policymakers have increasingly flooded the zone with complex and disruptive policies aimed at extinguishing our digital freedoms. The blog’s ability to highlight what was essential—and disregard what was not—allowed me to stay focused. Not only that, its guaranteed reliability offered instant access to critical information, often just as I was about to engage in high-stakes meetings with congressional staff.

Now, as a law professor, the blog serves as both an invaluable teaching tool (recently I assigned my students this article from guest-blogger Kieran McCarthy on the complex landscape of data scraping law) and a rich source of research material. More importantly, in an era where history risks being forgotten or rewritten, the blog stands as a time-tested record of the Internet’s evolution. It not only educates current and future generations about the challenges and milestones of Internet regulation but also serves as a stark reminder of the lessons we must remember.

Indeed, the blog has been instrumental in documenting our complex relationship with Internet governance over the past two decades, from the SOPA/PIPA debates to the ramifications of SESTA-FOSTA. Its archives are not just records; they are lessons about overzealous regulatory blunders we must remember.

The Internet remains a crucial battlefield in our fight against the encroachment of authoritarianism and the erosion of civil liberties. Now more than ever, the role of independent journalists and blogs is critical, especially as mainstream media increasingly falls under the influence of billionaires and government interests. In this climate, Eric stands out as a bastion of integrity. His work is not just informative; it is vital.

__

Coverage of the 20 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Celebrating the Blog’s 20th Blogiversary
Part 2: How Has the Blog Changed Over the Past 20 Years?
Part 3: Who Reads the Blog, and Why?
Part 4: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes
Part 5: How the Blog Helps Readers
Part 6: Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 7: Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 8: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Part 9: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years
Part 10: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years?

Coverage of the 10 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary!
Part 2: The Blog’s Impact
Part 3: The Blogosphere’s Evolution
Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP Law
Bonus: A Video Interview About the Blog

The post Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary (Part 6 of 10) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

__

“Professionally, the various click wrap cases and explanations have been the most helpful. The clear and straightforward explanations are far better than anything I’ve learned in an educational setting. Personally, I feel better informed about topics such as SLAAP laws, Section 230, and more.”

__

“I spent countless hours trying to get some sense and reason out of why my tiny hobby business selling handmade and repurposed Betty Boop & other earrings and vintage clothes, was being targeted and shut down [by the SAD Scheme].

I reached out to Etsy many times. They ghosted me and then banned me from asking for information from Etsy community help pages.

I reached out to Fleischer studios who purport to own this cartoon figure but whose claims are disputed. No answer. I reached out to their public relations department who said they would get back to me but didn’t.

I reached out to the “fledgling” attorneys AM Sullivan targeting me. Eventually after months the attorneys allowed my online shop to be reinstated. THEN they targeted me AGAIN and closed my Etsy shop plus my Australian PayPay as well. No compensation paid or offered.

For legitimate businesses with lots of $ tied up, many are forced to pay the attorneys to have their cash flow reinstated. It’s an unconscionable type of ransom blackmail operating in plain sight.

I was targeted during Covid lockdowns. I was completely disheartened, worn out with worry and fear and frustration. Lost interest in my small hobby shop adventure. Even to this day.

Finally I found out through your blog what was going on. Eric, you are like a knight in shining armour. Bless you for taking on this despicable dragon.”

__

“The collection and analysis of Section 230 cases really is phenomenal; helped me a lot when prepping for [litigating a] Google case”

__

“A lot of your posts / stories / cases you cover make fun dinner conversation.” [Eric’s comment: I agree! But the universe of other people who would want to discuss blog topics over dinner is very, very small LOL]

__

“This is the only blog that I read religiously. It has helped keep me informed on topics I’m not familiar with. It has also made me want to do my own blogging—one of the reasons why I joined my current org, which maintains a blog that I can contribute to. Your blog continues to inspire me to read the court filings and offer my own analysis, instead of just compiling what other reporters have already said about a case.”

__

“A funny story: when I teach my junior colleagues some of the concepts I’ve learned from your blog, they think I have some kind of secret magical knowledge about U.S. law! But really, it’s thanks to your articles, courses, and my own research into the cases you’ve analyzed. For example, after reading your posts, we updated all our website hyperlinks to make them blue and clearly visible.”

__

“Just by quicky reading your summary I feel I am up to date in US internet law and IT law, as an internet lawyer we need to be updated always of foreign law ”

__

“The blog is an incredible resource for lawyers, academics, and others interested in law and technology cases and developments…I have cited the blog in my research, consulted it to learn about current litigation, assigned posts to students in several of the courses I teach, and recommended it as a source of legal news to folks looking to stay abreast of issues.”

__

Coverage of the 20 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Celebrating the Blog’s 20th Blogiversary
Part 2: How Has the Blog Changed Over the Past 20 Years?
Part 3: Who Reads the Blog, and Why?
Part 4: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes
Part 5: How the Blog Helps Readers
Part 6: Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 7: Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 8: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Part 9: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years
Part 10: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years?

Coverage of the 10 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary!
Part 2: The Blog’s Impact
Part 3: The Blogosphere’s Evolution
Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP Law
Bonus: A Video Interview About the Blog

The post Blogiversary: How the Blog Helps Readers (Part 5 of 10) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Readers’ Favorite Topics

“the emoji law genre. Because who doesn’t love emoji? …Emoji law always crack me up. It amuses me to see the often whimsical world of emoji juxtaposed with the stereotype of stodgy, old fashioned courts. But I also appreciate the cases that revolve around consumer protection – such as the click wrap cases.”

__

“your exposure of what you so aptly named the SAD Scheme”

__

“I like the frequent and long running reporting of internet keyword cases. I have routinely done searches of all the blog posts on this to make sure I am up on the latest way courts are dealing with this issue”

__

“Some stuff isn’t as relevant to me in my day to day (terms of service cases for example) but overall, I find it helpful to learn about everything you address. I can speed read through the cases that aren’t as relevant to my practice.  In addition to Section 230, I like the cases that report on greedy idiots filing and litigating cases over “who cares” nonsense like one photo or keywords…The cases about interpretation of emojis and memes are also fascinating to me…I like how you acknowledge the “bad facts” but focus on the real implications of holding a platform responsible for the shitty things some creeps do or the dumb things teenagers do”

__

“I’ve been enjoying all the coverage on ToS formation lately. The fiction of mutual agreement is intriguing.” [For more on the crisis of online contracts, see this short piece.]

__

“I analyze everything you post and often apply those insights to my work—especially topics like Section 230 of the CDA, privacy issues, and e-commerce.”

__

“I’ve always turned to your blog when SCOTUS copyright decisions come down. Your analysis is always top-notch and incredibly helpful. In fact, I think the first time I came across your site was in the Grokster aftermath…” [See my coverage and the commentary roundup back when the discourse took place in the blogosphere and not social media.]

__

“I like Internet liability trademarks and advertising law.”

__

“One topic you focus on that I find really compelling is the SAD scheme….All of your work on emojis is fascinating as well. And I don’t entirely get Section 230 but I find those posts very interesting too. Most relevant to my work…are your thoughts on keyword ads and initial interest confusion…It’s such an interesting combination of assumptions about consumer behavior, understanding how the internet and searching work, and the underlying suggestion that use of another’s marks is inevitably free riding. With that topic and others, I really admire your straightforward take on what’s going on and where the courts should be going.”

__

“certain series of posts or topics stand out, like your writing about developments regarding Section 230, state privacy laws, and the Copyright Claims Board….Section 230 writing because of how it relates to so many of the online/Internet service providers we each use and the ongoing challenges of abusive user-generated content on the Web. I think Section 230 is more applicable to my personal reading of the blog than professional – we have a very limited (but non-zero) relation to 230 here, in my opinion, because we accept and render very little user/customer-provided content and it’s rarely or never the contentious or abusive type of content that triggers action. But I enjoy reading anything on the blog that enhances my understanding of the legal workings of our society. I’ve really enjoyed the surprises like the VPPA or how the Copyright Claims Board maybe isn’t working as one would hope.”

__

[UPDATE] “I like how the blog went bananas over banana copyright law.  The banana costumes were a creative and brilliant way to engage your students, and the posts provided fodder for numerous discussions in my copyright law class.”

* * *

Some topics where I usually blog every case I see:

• Section 230 cases
• Section 512 safe harbor cases (but these are quite rare) and 512(f) cases (though these are all pretty similar now)
• Constitutional challenges to Internet censorship laws
• Keyword advertising cases
• Emoji law
• Copyrights and tattoos
• Consumer Review Fairness Act and California “Yelp Law” cases

Some topics that I also prioritized in the old days that have faded over the years because I rarely see interesting cases any more.

• Spam
• Adware and spyware cases
• Lawsuits over teenagers making teen mistakes online

Readers’ Favorite Posts

A professor writes: “I’ve been using this for teaching for 15 years….”

A lawyer writes: “In my role I spend a lot of time thinking about arbitration and ToS. I’ve reposted one of my favorite passages of yours below. It always makes me laugh and I may or may not send it to lazy business partners when they don’t listen to (or loop in) my product legal counterparts…:)

I don’t know how this UI got approved, either from an aesthetic or legal standpoint. Did the lawyer cut corners? Was the lawyer out-of-date on best practices? Did the marketing team ignore the lawyers or, worse, proceed without legal support? UIs like this are a minor tragedy because TOS formation problems are so easily avoided–and so important to avoid. You can definitely do better than this!

A professor writes: “The one I have referred back to and sent to the most people (students) is the “don’t call it soft ip” post.”

A litigator writes: “I liked when you said nice things about the opinion in a case I argued to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (Marshall Locksmith v. Google).”

A professor writes: “the NetChoice write-ups about the recent Texas and Florida laws were especially useful and helped me prepare my own talks about them.”

* * *

Some posts that I repost almost every year:

• For Pi Day (3/14): “Irrational Copyright Lawsuit Over “Pi Symphony” Gets Sliced–Erickson v. Blake” (I’m not a punner most of the time, but I fully indulged in this one)
• For April Fool’s Day: “Bloggers’ April Fools Jokes” (from my personal blog)
• On the anniversary of my mom’s death: “My Mom Died: Gail Schlachter Hauser, 1943-2015” (from my personal blog)

I’m proud of almost all of my blog posts, but I’ll highlight some posts that stand out as “exceptional” to me among the thousands of posts I’ve made:

• “Is There Any Way to Cure An “Accidental” Download of Child Pornography?”
  An all-time leader in search referral traffic for obvious reasons.
• “Wikipedia Will Fail Within 5 Years.” A prediction from 2005 that didn’t quite come true LOL.
• “Facebook Rant Against ‘Arial’ Font Helps Reverse Sex Offender Determination.”
• The DC v. RR saga, such as this post.
• Let’s Stop Using the Term “Soft IP”. A dozen years later, I’m still fighting this nomenclature battle LOL.
• “Can Your Employer Fire You For Posting Vacation Photos to Facebook?–Jones v. Accentia.” At my Forbes Tertium Quid blog, this knock-it-out post went unexpectedly viral, with over a quarter-million views.
• From my personal blog: “Wisconsin’s Diploma Privilege Draws More Questions.” This hastily drafted post was cited by the famed Judge Posner in a 7th Circuit opinion.

Readers’ Favorite Memes

Only two nominations from readers:

and

* * *

Some of my nominees:

Click on the image to see the animation

[This is my GIF of choice for CPRA cases because the CPRA came rolling in hot at the same time Trump was plotting his insurrection.]

__

Coverage of the 20 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Celebrating the Blog’s 20th Blogiversary
Part 2: How Has the Blog Changed Over the Past 20 Years?
Part 3: Who Reads the Blog, and Why?
Part 4: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes
Part 5: How the Blog Helps Readers
Part 6: Jess Miers Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 7: Ethan Ackerman Reflects on the Blogiversary
Part 8: Guest Bloggers of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Part 9: How Information Consumption Habits Have Changed Over the Years
Part 10: What Will This Blog Look Like in 10 Years?

Coverage of the 10 year blogiversary:

Part 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary!
Part 2: The Blog’s Impact
Part 3: The Blogosphere’s Evolution
Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP Law
Bonus: A Video Interview About the Blog

The post Blogiversary: Readers’ Favorite Topics, Posts, and Memes (Part 4 of 10) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.