Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Key Part of the CA Age-Appropriate Design Code (the Rest is TBD)–NetChoice v. Bonta
…Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Is Unconstitutional Five Ways That the California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC/AB 2273) Is Radical Policy Some Memes About California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AB 2273) An Interview…
Announcing the 2024 Edition of My Internet Law Casebook
…Ct.) 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 §502 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=502.&lawCode=PEN] Comparison of Trespass to Chattels Doctrines…
Section 230 Preempts FOSTA Claim–Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic
…posting videos and allowing for monetization based on views—the website cannot be said to be a co-developer of illicit content.” A reminder that there is no such thing as “neutral”…
What Happened to Gonzalez v. Google After the SCOTUS Decision?
…the Taamneh decision wiped out its core claim, the plaintiffs shifted to entirely new legal theories: (1) Article 1382 of the French Code Civil which provides, “[e]very act whatever of…
Mississippi’s Age-Authentication Law Declared Unconstitutional–NetChoice v. Fitch
…Ruling Declaring California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Unconstitutional–NetChoice v. Bonta Two Separate Courts Reiterate That Online Age Authentication Mandates Are Unconstitutional Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s From User-Generated Content Services…
Indiana’s Anti-Online Porn Law “Is Not Close” to Constitutional–Free Speech Coalition v. Rokita
…to minors, but only if the disseminator does so “knowingly or intentionally” or “believ[ed] or intend[ed]” the recipient was under 18. Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3. This is problematic here because…
‘Scruff’ App Qualifies for Section 230 Immunity–J.R. v. Mancino
…(7) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255; (8) violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-2010 et seq.; (9) necessaries; and (10) unfair trade practices in violation of S.C. Code Ann….
Courts Are Rejecting Attempts to Weaponize Laws That Protect Consumer Reviews
In 2014, California enacted AB2365, sometimes called the “Yelp law,” codified at Cal. Civil Code 1670.8. The law prohibits businesses from suppressing consumer reviews (on Yelp or elsewhere). Its main…
Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to “Editorializing” About Third-Party Content–Marvin v. Lanctot
…“We Hear You 56763.” (56763 is the zip code covering Warroad, MN). * * * With respect to Coauette’s liability for defamation, the court frames the issue as whether “Section…
Elon Musk’s Gifts to Web Scrapers (Guest Blog Post)
…and Professions Code Section 17200, and misappropriation. Recently, Bright Data had its motion to dismiss granted against X Corp. on all counts. X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., 3:23-cv-03698 (N.D….