Online Dating Services Must Give California Users a “Cooling Off” Period–Howell v. Grindr
…Retail Privacy Statute Doesn’t Apply to Download Transactions – Apple v Superior Court (Krescent) CA Court Confirms that Pineda v Williams-Sonoma (the Zip-Code-as-PII Case) Applies Retrospectively — Dardarian v. OfficeMax…
Hackers Could Take Control Of Your Car, But You Can’t Sue Carmakers For That Risk (Forbes Cross-Post)
Photo credit: “Car center console and smart phone display hacker icon” // ShutterStock Cars contain millions of lines of software code, which makes them tempting targets for hackers. Further, with…
Amazon AppStore and Google Play Defeat Lawsuit Over Infringing App Name–Free Kick Master v. Apple (Forbes Cross-Post)
…that Amazon or Google acted as an author of the challenged content – e.g., that either Amazon or Google chose the names of the products, wrote any of the code,…
University Cannot Discipline Student for Off-Campus Tweets
…appeared to obliquely reference W.) The hearing panel found that Yeasin more likely than not violated a provision of the code of conduct which covers threats and physical safety, and…
Chain of Title Proves Fatal to “Happy Birthday” Copyright Claim (Guest Blog Post)
…a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), but one could question whether that claim is preempted, and whether it can be used to provide…
Two Tough Section 230 Rulings From Last Week–General Steel v. Chumley & Xcentric v. Smith
…however, they have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their claim that the CDA protects them from criminal liability for any potential violation of Iowa Code Section 720.4….
2015 Internet Law Casebook Now Available
…Agreement Failed In Court and Left Zappos Legally Naked IV. Trespass/Computer Fraud & Abuse Act Review: the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030], and California Penal Code…
Sending Emails Isn’t Workplace Stalking–People v. Marian
Do you remember the 1990s debates over whether cyberspace is a “place,” and why that might matter? Yeah, we’re back to that. This case involves N.Y. Penal Law § 120.45(3),…
Section 230(c)(2) Gets No Luv From the Courts–Song Fi v. Google
…Code Section 28-3904.” YouTube won a venue transfer to California based on its user agreement. See our prior blog coverage of that ruling. Section 230(c)(2) Fails YouTube defended some of…
California’s Resale Royalty Statute Violates the Dormant Commerce Clause—In Part (Guest Blog Post)
By guest blogger Tyler Ochoa On Tuesday, May 5, an eleven-judge en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit held that California’s Resale Royalty Statute, Civil Code § 986, could not…