Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

We know trademarks. With a team of more than 25 lawyers, including Professor J. Thomas McCarthy, world-renowned author of the well-respected McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, we are a one-stop practice for guarding valuable business assets.

Trademark

Band 1: Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets, California

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property; Trade Marks, Copyright And Design

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property: Trademarks: Non-Contentious

Silver: Firms: Enforcement and Litigation, California 

Bronze: Firms: Prosecution and Strategy, California

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Our M&A lawyers represent Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, investment banks, and privately-held companies in their most high-profile and complex mergers and acquisitions.

Mergers + Acquisitions

M&A Lawyers & Capabilities

Ranked for M&A: Foreign Firms in Singapore

Ranked for Global Corporate/M&A 

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A – Nationwide

Ranked for Corporate/M&A – Northern California

Ranked Band 1 for California Corporate/M&A: Deals in Asia

Ranked in the “Highly Regarded” Category of New York Corporate/M&A

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A: International

Ranked Band 1 for Corporate/M&A in Japan

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: International in Singapore

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Hong Kong-based (International Firms)

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Mid-Market in Germany

Awarded Deal of the Year for Imerys Joint Venture with British Lithium

Two MoFo Japan Deals Shortlisted for M&A Deal of the Year (Premium)

Two MoFo China Deals Shortlisted M&A Deal of the Year (Premium and Midsize)

Five MoFo Lawyers Named to M&A Powerlist

Named a Leading Firm for M&A

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: Statehouse v. Smartphone

Federal Court Enjoins California Teen Privacy Law . . . Again

All Your Sale Are Belong to Us - Mitigating IP and Payments Risk in In-Game Economies (Part II – User-Generated Content and In-Game Payment Models)

A New California Digital Content Law Establishes New Requirements for Advertisers and Vendors

California’s Assembly Bill 587 Loses Key Provisions After Legal Challenge from X

A few months ago, we <a href="/topics/state-lawmakers-introduce-laws-governing-teen-use-of-social-media" target="_self">highlighted</a> the many pending and enacted state-level social media laws targeting minors’ use of social media. Since then, political and industry groups have begun to push back, calling into question whether these types of social media laws will ultimately be successfully implemented. Most recently, pending or enacted laws in Mississippi, New York, and California are facing overlapping challenges.Mississippi. A federal district court judge <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMTkwLTUxMjEtZGVlOS1hM2JkLWZkYjc3OGE4MDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6InllRlhUR0g5M1htWXlyc3Zrc1k5YlE9PURoVjZoUVBQZ2s4bGFuQ1dLREVpbGc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE5OTE5MzIzMDk1Iiwic2lnIjoid0hmdXg4cllXTzU3MGtERlJmNGRpNjJQVWUwPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=top%20stories%20digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">blocked</a> Mississippi’s attorney general from enforcing <a href="https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2024/html/HB/1100-1199/HB1126PS.htm" target="_blank">H.B. 1126</a> (the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act) on July 1, 2024, the day it was set to go into effect. The law would require social media platforms both to obtain parental consent for minors to use the platforms and to verify user ages. The internet trade association NetChoice sued the state on June 7, 2024, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. The court found that the state attorney general failed to show that alternatives to the law are insufficient for the state’s objective of protecting children, as mandated under the required strict scrutiny standard, and upheld a preliminary injunction of the law. Most recently, the court <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMTkwLWJjOTctZGMxMy1hMzkwLWJlOTdlNjNhMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6IkhFRDhlcEFJLzdvM2wrWU5HeDN5SlE9PUJONmNRSWxZandBaktLZlNXV0p2RXc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzIxMjE2MTI1MjQ1Iiwic2lnIjoiakpEb3hpYjlVSDMra1MrekhnQ2lnU2s0Mkc4PSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">denied</a> the attorney general’s motion to allow the law to go into effect pending appeal. As we previously reported, NetChoice has already prevailed in similar cases involving state social media laws in Ohio, California, and Arkansas.New York. In June, New York enacted <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7694/amendment/A" target="_blank">S.B. 7694A</a> (the SAFE For Kids Act), which requires age verification by social media platforms to determine whether users need to seek parental consent to use such platforms. The state attorney general is tasked with determining the rules for verifying ages and identities of legal guardians. However, she faces significant opposition from tech industry groups, as well as practical hurdles in determining an adequate age verification process to require from platforms. Strict standards that require personal information could face privacy issues, while less stringent measures could allow easy circumvention. Age verification is also <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMThmLWNhMjQtZGIyOS1hYmFmLWRiNzQzOTRjMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6Ikh2QitXbk1SYzluVmhqRVZqUEgwRGc9PUxqSGQ5WXFPcW0va1VPQ1NEZ2hycWc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE3MTUzMTM1MTY2Iiwic2lnIjoiVHB6M29aTnJweWJ2eEpzMm0ra2FIUWVoWThrPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">controversial</a> because of its potential to limit access to platforms by vulnerable groups and immigrants without lawful status. The law has <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMThmLWUwZDgtZGExOC1hYjlmLWZkZmM5OTZmMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6ImFxdjNQaUI5eGZGY0orU0JwV3RHYUE9PWRhR2tub3hFc0ptTmRGMzhTSm15Unc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE3NTg0OTkwNTEzIiwic2lnIjoiR1duT3lOMHJUU1Y4S1RXN1BtbWMzZmZiOWZzPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">already faced significant lobbying opposition</a>, leading lawmakers to update the initial bill to (i) require the attorney general rather than platforms to make rules on age verification, and (ii) remove the private right of action in the initial bill in favor of limiting enforcement to the attorney general.California. California’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB976" target="_blank">SB-976</a> (the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) is <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMTkwLTViYjItZDNjYi1hOWZiLWRiZjI5OGVjMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6ImpwTk9oYjJPQjhvN0xPMWd1cW5sNnc9PUtlV2VzdDFaWHE3WmdQdlRnNFRtQXc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE5OTE5MzIzMDk3Iiwic2lnIjoicyt6VjRtalJQZmVlLzVXVVRZL1llWW5Ka0JjPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=top%20stories%20digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">facing opposition</a> from tech industry lobbying groups. The law allows parents to control notifications and whether children can access an algorithmic feed as opposed to a chronological feed, and requires rules for age verification. Opponents argue that LGBTQ+ teenagers would be restricted from connecting with others in their community if parental consent is required. Critics also argue that the law is invasive, citing potential infringement on free speech protections and privacy concerns related to age verification. State lawmakers have already updated the law to attempt to remedy some of these concerns.Despite the roadblocks faced by states in pushing forward these laws, movement in this area persists and social media laws focused on minors continue to move through the lawmaking process. We will continue to monitor new laws in this area and the increasing efforts to oppose them.

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.

harris_lindsay_blog_150x150.png

harris_lindsay_common_640x280.jpg

harris_lindsay_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

harris_lindsay_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

harris_lindsay_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Lindsay is an associate in the Technology Transactions Group of Morrison Foerster.

Lindsay B. Harris

Lindsay Harris

A few months ago, we highlighted the many pending and enacted state-level social media laws targeting minors’ use of social media. Since then, political and industry groups have begun to push back, calling into question whether these types of social media laws will ultimately be successfully implemented.

State Social Media Laws Targeted at Teens Face Opposition

On May 9, 2024, in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/x-corp-v-bright-data-ltd-1" target="_blank">X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd</a>., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed X’s claims alleging that Bright Data’s access to X’s systems, and scraping and selling of publicly available data from X’s platform, violated its Terms of Service and other policies. Bright Data’s business involves various data scraping products and services, such as scraping data on behalf of its customers, selling tools that enable customer to scrape data, and providing IP proxies for customers to use when scraping data.As an initial matter, the court divided its analysis in two, first looking at X’s claims based on Bright Data’s improper access to X’s systems and then at X’s claims based on Bright Data’s scraping and selling of X’s data. The court easily dismissed the claims based on improper access to X’s systems, including claims for trespass to chattels, violation of California Section 17200 (prohibiting unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts), tortious interference with contract, and breach of contract. There was nothing particularly surprising in the court’s analysis of these claims, since the dismissals primarily resulted from X’s failure to plead adequate damages arising from Bright Data’s allegedly improper access.The more interesting aspect of Bright Data came next, where the court considered X’s claim that Bright Data’s scraping and selling of data violated X’s Terms of Service and held that X’s claims were preempted by federal copyright law.Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act states that federal copyright law preempts state-law claims when a plaintiff’s work “come[s] within the subject matter of copyright” and state law grants “legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright.” The court in Bright Data noted that there are two types of copyright preemption: (i) express preemption with respect to state law rights that are “equivalent” to federal copyright rights, and (ii) conflict preemption, where enforcement of the state law would more generally undermine the purpose of federal copyright law. The court in Bright Data focused on this second type of preemption.Under X’s Terms of Service, users retain ownership of the images, text, and other content that they upload to the X platform, and grant X a broad, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to display users’ content on the X platform and to use that content in various other ways, including by disseminating the user content through X’s paid tools. The Terms of Service also prohibit scraping and selling any content from the X platform.As a first step in its preemption analysis, the court notes that, under the Terms of Service, X does not own the user content that Bright Data scraped and sold, and X merely has a non-exclusive license to use the content. Under federal copyright law, a non-exclusive licensee is permitted to use the licensed works within the scope of the license, but has no right to enforce the copyright in, or exclude others from using, the works. Despite this, the claims that X asserted in Bright Data sought to enforce contractual terms that would give X the ability to exclude others from using the content in a manner that would otherwise be available only to the owner (or, possibly, the exclusive licensee) of the copyright in the content, not to a mere non-exclusive licensee.(As an aside, the court speculates that the reason that X does not require users to assign ownership of their content to X, or grant X an exclusive license to use content, under its Terms of Service is because this would impact X’s ability to claim the benefit of the safe harbors under Section 512(a) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, two federal statutes that protect website operators from liability arising from content posted by users. The court notes: “X Corp. wants it both ways: to keep its safe harbors yet exercise a copyright owner’s right to exclude, wresting fees from those who wish to extract and copy X users’ content.” In fact, it is not necessarily true that the availability of these statutory safe harbors turns on whether the website operator holds title (or an exclusive license) to the user content at issue. The more likely reason that X does not claim ownership of user content is that doing so would be viewed as overreach and result in significant backlash among its users. But as this issue is not central to the copyright preemption analysis, we leave it for another day.)The court then goes on to hold that X’s claim that Bright Data breached the Terms of Service by scraping and selling user content is preempted by federal copyright law in three ways, namely that enforcement of X’s contractual rights would:<ol class="li-text-orange"><ol class="li-text-orange"><ol class="li-text-orange"><li>Interfere with copyright owners’ exclusive rights and frustrate federal copyright law, since allowing X to enforce its Terms of Service would give it, a non-exclusive licensee, the ability to exclude others from exercising those rights;</li><li class="li-text-orange">Frustrate the operation of fair use, which would (absent a contract preventing it) allow use of the user content for certain permitted purposes (note that, as <a href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/05/x-corp-v-bright-data-is-the-decision-weve-been-waiting-for-guest-blog-post.htm">observed</a> by guest blogger Guy Rub in Eric Goldman’s blog, the court seems to treat fair use as something akin to an affirmative right, rather than as the affirmative defense to an infringement claim that it actually is); and</li><li>Restrict use of type of information that Congress intended to keep free from restraint, namely uncopyrightable items such as likes, user names, short comments, etc. (It is not entirely clear how this can form a basis for preemption given that these items fall outside the scope of copyright law … but we digress.)</li></ol></ol></ol>Overall, the court presents an interesting new addition to web scraping law, one not addressed in a case that the court still found six occasions to cite, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-16783/17-16783-2019-09-09.html" target="_blank">hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp</a>. (see one of our <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/ninth-circuits-linkedin-decision-does-not-greenlight-the-unauthorized-web-scraping-of-public-websites" target="_blank">previous articles</a> on that case). In light of Bright Data, website operators should be aware that contractual prohibitions contained in terms of service may not be effective to prevent scraping of user content that they make publicly available.

California Federal Court Holds X’s Claims Against Scraper Preempted by Federal Law