As we noted in our recent post on the Second Circuit case Herrick v. Grindr, LLC, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) continues to provide immunity to online intermediaries from liability for user content, despite pressure from courts and legislatures seeking to chip away at this safe harbor. The Federal Circuit case Marshall’s Locksmith Service Inc. v. Google, LLC serves as another example of Section 230’s resiliency.

In Marshall’s Locksmith, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by 14 locksmith companies against search engine operators Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! for allegedly conspiring to allow “scam locksmiths” to inundate the online search results page in order to extract additional advertising revenue.

The scam locksmiths at issue published websites targeting heavily populated locations around the country to trick potential customers into believing that they were local companies. These websites provided either a fictitious address or no address at all, and falsely claimed that they were local businesses. The plaintiffs asserted various federal and state law claims against the search engine operators relating to false advertising, conspiracy and fraud based on their activities in connection with the scam locksmiths’ websites.
Continue Reading

In March, Socially Aware reported on a lawsuit involving several prominent news outlets’ publication of a photo of NFL quarterback Tom Brady on Twitter. The case had the potential to upend a copyright and Internet-law rule that, in the words of a Forbes columnist, “media companies had viewed as settled law for over a

A federal district court in California has added to the small body of case law addressing whether it’s permissible for one party to use another party’s trademark as a hashtag. The court held that, for several reasons, the 9th Circuit’s nominative fair use analysis did not cover one company’s use of another company’s trademarks as

Often hailed as the law that gave us the modern Internet, Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by third parties. Many commentators, including us here at Socially Aware, have noted that Section 230 has faced significant challenges in recent years. But Section 230 has proven resilient (as we previously noted here and here), and that resiliency was again demonstrated by the Second Circuit’s recent opinion in Herrick v. Grindr, LLC.

As we noted in our prior post following the district court’s order dismissing plaintiff Herrick’s claims on Section 230 grounds, the case arose from fake Grindr profiles allegedly set up by Herrick’s ex-boyfriend. According to Herrick, these fake profiles resulted in Herrick facing harassment from over 1,000 strangers who showed up at his door over the course of several months seeking violent sexual encounters.
Continue Reading

A new law in Australia makes a social media company’s failure to remove “abhorrent violent material” from its platform punishable by significant fines. The law also states that the executives at social media companies who fail to remove the content could be sentenced to jail time.

The European Parliament voted to approve the Copyright Directive,

In what is being described as “the first settlement to deem such sales illegally deceptive,” New York Attorney General Letitia James has entered into a settlement with a company that had been selling fake followers, likes and views on several social media platforms. Read how much revenue the sales were generating for the

As we have noted previously, the California Court of Appeal’s Hassell v. Bird decision in 2016 upholding an injunction requiring Yelp to remove certain user reviews was discouraging to social media companies and other online intermediaries, as well as to fans of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and proponents of Internet free speech generally. The recent California Supreme Court decision reversing the Court of Appeal was, therefore, met with considerable relief by many in the Internet community.

But while the California Supreme Court’s decision is undoubtedly a significant development, it would be premature for Section 230 fans to break out the champagne; the “most important law protecting Internet speech” remains under attack from many directions, and this recent decision is far from definitive. But before getting into the details of the Hassell v. Bird opinion, let’s step back and consider the context in which the case arose.

Before Section 230: A Wild, Wild Web

A fundamental issue for social media platforms and other online intermediaries, including review sites like Yelp, is whether a company may be held liable when its customers engage in bad behavior, such as posting defamatory content or content that infringes the IP rights of third parties. Imagine if Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Yelp were potentially liable for defamation every time one of their users said something nasty (and untrue) about another user on their platforms. It would be hard to imagine the Internet as we currently know it existing if that were the case.
Continue Reading

On July 19, 2018, in May, et al. v. Expedia Inc., U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas grant a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss a putative class action on the grounds that the plaintiff agreed to the defendants’ website’s Terms and Conditions, which contained a mandatory arbitration clause.

HomeAway User Files Putative Class Action 

HomeAway is an online marketplace for vacation rental properties where property owners can list their properties for rent and travelers can book rental properties. HomeAway’s original business model was to charge owners a fee to list their properties (either on a one-year subscription or pay-per-booking basis) and to allow travelers to search and book rentals for free. HomeAway was acquired by Expedia in 2015 and changed its business model to charge travelers a fee to book rentals in mid-2016. Plaintiff James May had been a property owner who used HomeAway since 2013.
Continue Reading

An advertising executive who lost his job after being named on an anonymous Instagram account is suing the now-defunct account for defamation. The suit names as defendants not only the account—Diet Madison Avenue, which was intended to root out harassment and discrimination at ad agencies—but also (as “Jane Doe 1,” “Jane Doe 2,” et cetera)

This is the famous Monkey selfie.

I confess: I have mixed emotions regarding the iconic “monkey-selfie” photo and all the hubbub it has created.

Don’t get me wrong; I think monkeys are wonderful, and the photo deserves its iconic status. Who can resist smiling while viewing that famous image of Naruto, the macaque monkey who allegedly snapped the self-portrait?

And the monkey selfie has been a boon to legal blogs. Our own posts regarding the photo have been among the most viewed content on Socially Aware (one of our posts prompted a call from my mother, who felt strongly that Naruto should be entitled to a copyright in the photo).

But, let’s face it, in an era where technology disruption is generating so many critical and difficult copyright issues, the law relevant to the monkey selfie is pretty straightforward, at least in the United States. As the U.S. Copyright Office states in its Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices, for a work to be copyrightable, it must “owe its origin to a human being,” and that materials produced solely by nature, by plants or by animals do not count. U.S. courts have reached the same conclusion. (Although I note that David Slater, the nature photographer whose camera was used to take the photo, claims that he—and not the macaque—is in fact the author of the photo for copyright purposes.)
Continue Reading