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

A recent German Federal Court of Justice decision may have a significant impact on content providers’ business models. Offering software that allows users to block advertising does not constitute an unfair commercial practice. Even providing advertisers with the option to pay for showing certain ads—a practice known as whitelisting—does not violate the unfair competition rules.

Issued on April 19, the decision involved a legal dispute between the ad blocking software provider Eyeo GmbH and the online-content provider Axel Springer (which also happens to be Germany’s largest publishing house). The decision overruled the Higher Regional Court of Cologne’s previous decision, which, like the Federal Court of Justice, did not categorize Eyeo’s offer of its ad blocking product as an unfair competition practice, but did categorize paid whitelisting as unlawful.

Axel Springer is now left with the final option of taking the case to the Federal Constitutional Court.

Background and core arguments of the parties

Eyeo, a German software company, offers the product AdBlock Plus, which allows Internet users to block ads online. The product became the most popular ad blocking software in Germany and abroad, with over 500 million downloads and 100 million users worldwide.

In 2011, the company started to monetize its product by offering a whitelisting service that gives advertisers the option to pay to show their ads. To get on Eyeo’s list of companies whose ads are not blocked, advertisers have to comply with Eyeo’s “acceptable advertising” conditions and share their ad revenue with the company. The conditions dictate the advertising’s features such as its placement, size, and—in the case of text advertising—color.
Continue Reading

Based on copyright infringement, emotional distress and other claims, a federal district court in California awarded $6.4 million to a victim of revenge porn, the posting of explicit material without the subject’s consent. The judgment is believed to be one of the largest awards relating to revenge porn. A Socially Aware post that we wrote

Does a search engine operator have to delist websites hosting, without authorization, your trade secret materials or other intellectual property? The answer may depend on where you sue—just ask Google. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently handed the company a victory over plaintiff Equustek Solutions Inc. in what has turned into an international battle where physical borders can have very real consequences on the Internet.

The dispute began when a rival company, Datalink, allegedly misappropriated Equustek’s trade secrets in developing competing products. Equustek also alleged that Datalink misled customers who thought they were buying Equustek products. In 2012, Equustek obtained numerous court orders in Canada against Datalink. Datalink refused to comply, and Canadian court issued an arrest warrant for the primary defendant, who has yet to be apprehended.
Continue Reading

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act continues to act as one of the strongest legal protections that social media companies have to avoid being saddled with crippling damage awards based on the misdeeds of their users.

The strong protections afforded by Section 230(c) were recently reaffirmed by Judge Caproni of the Southern District of New York, in Herrick v. Grindr. The case involved a dispute between the social networking platform Grindr and an individual who was maliciously targeted through the platform by his former lover. For the unfamiliar, Grindr is mobile app directed to gay and bisexual men that, using geolocation technology, helps them to connect with other users who are located nearby.

Plaintiff Herrick alleged that his ex-boyfriend set up several fake profiles on Grindr that claimed to be him. Over a thousand users responded to the impersonating profiles. Herrick’s ex‑boyfriend, pretending to be Herrick, would then direct the men to Herrick’s’ work-place and home. The ex-boyfriend, still posing as Herrick, would also tell these would-be suitors that Herrick had certain rape fantasies, that he would initially resist their overtures, and that they should attempt to overcome Herrick’s initial refusals. The impersonating profiles were reported to Grindr (the app’s operator), but Herrick claimed that Grindr did not respond, other than to send an automated message.
Continue Reading

In a decision that has generated considerable controversy, a federal court in New York has held that the popular practice of embedding tweets into websites and blogs can result in copyright infringement. Plaintiff Justin Goldman had taken a photo of NFL quarterback Tom Brady, which Goldman posted to Snapchat. Snapchat users “screengrabbed” the image

In February the U.S Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. MicrosoftAt issue is Microsoft’s challenge to a warrant issued by a U.S. court directing it to produce emails stored in Ireland. With implications for government investigations, privacy law, and multi-national tech companies’ ability to compete globally, the case has

Companies that offer services, whether online or offline, to consumers on a subscription or other automatic renewal basis should be aware that such offers are heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. A recent amendment to Section 17602 of California’s Business and Professions Code provides a good opportunity for businesses that make subscription offers to review their practices. As of July 1, 2018, the obligations under California law will expand in two ways that may require businesses to update those practices.

The first change relates to the information that businesses must provide to consumers regarding the terms of a subscription offer. The current law already requires a business to provide certain information about the renewal process—such as the amount of the recurring charges, the length of the renewal period, and the cancellation policy—both before the consumer accepts the agreement, and afterwards in an acknowledgement. The amendment provides that, as of July 1, 2018, if the offer includes any free trial or gift component, the information provided to consumers must also include a “clear and conspicuous explanation of the price that will be charged after the trial ends or the manner in which the subscription or purchasing agreement pricing will change upon conclusion of the trial.”
Continue Reading