Lawsuit Against Online Dating App Grindr Dismissed Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

19 03 2018

Socially Aware

on March 15, 2018

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.

Herrick then sued Grindr, claiming that the company was liable to him because of the defective design of the app and the failure to police such conduct on the app. Specifically, Herrick alleged that the Grindr app lacked safety features that would prevent bad actors such as his former boyfriend from using the app to impersonate others. Herrick also claimed that Grindr had a duty to warn him and other users that it could not protect them from harassment stemming from impersonators.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2018/03/15/lawsuit-against-online-dating-app-grindr-dismissed-under-section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act/

Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com..

Powered by WPeMatico



Angry Pick-Up Artist Says He Won’t Issue Bogus YouTube Claim On Critic’s Video; Issues Bogus Claim On Critic’s Video

7 03 2018

Techdirt

March 3, 2018

Another case of YouTube’s copyright notification system being abused has filtered down through social media. A YouTuber whose channel specializes in game reviews was targeted by the developer of the game after some back-and-forth on the internet over his negative review.

Chris Hodgkinson reviewed a game called Super Seducer, which supposedly teaches dudes how to pick up women through the magical art of full-motion video. Call it “edutainment.” (If you must…) The developer, Richard La Ruina, didn’t care for his game being featured on a video series entitled “This is the Worst Game Ever.” Nor did he care for Hodgkinson’s suggestion the game offered nothing to men in the way of usable pick-up artistry.

more

The content in this post was found at  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180303/16573839346/angry-pick-up-artist-says-he-wont-issue-bogus-youtube-claim-critics-video-issues-bogus-claim-critics-video.shtml
Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com.

Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

Powered by WPeMatico



Federal Court Shuts Down IMDb-Targeting ‘Anti-Ageism’ Law Permanently

27 02 2018

Techdirt

retrieved Feb. 23, 2018

In the annals of stupid legislation, California’s attempt to fight ageism at Hollywood studios by targeting third-party websites and using the First Amendment as a doormat will secure a prominent place in infamy. Rising from the ashes of a failed lawsuit brought by an actress who claimed IMDb cost her untold amounts of wealth by publishing her age, the law basically said IMDb couldn’t publish facts on its website. Those pushing the legislation included the Screen Actors Guild, which apparently doesn’t have the spine to stand up to studios and target them for discriminating against actors and actresses.

Last year, IMDb secured a temporary injunction against the state of California, forbidding it from enforcing the law while the courts sorted out its constitutionality. That day has arrived. A federal court has declared the law unconstitutional and permanently blocked California from going after IMDb because Hollywood producers participate in discriminatory hiring. (h/t Jacob Gershman)

The decision [PDF] is short. It takes only six pages for the district court to destroy the state’s arguments. First, it tells the state it’s not going to apply a lower First Amendment standard of scrutiny to its awful law.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180221/14510139279/federal-court-shuts-down-imdb-targeting-anti-ageism-law-permanently.shtml Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com.

Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Powered by WPeMatico



Twitter Defamation Claim Defeated by a Question Mark–Boulger v. Woods

10 02 2018

This is a defamation lawsuit brought against James Woods by a woman (Portia Boulger) who was wrongly identified as a Nazi supporter online. In March, candidate Trump had a rally in Chicago. The Tribune posted a photo of a woman at the rally giving the Nazi salute. The next day “@voxday” posted the photograph, along with a photograph of plaintiff identifying plaintiff as “Organizer (Women for Bernie).”

Boulger sued Woods in District Court in Ohio. Woods filed an answer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and after the time for service had expired, a motion for summary judgment or for dismissal for failure to perfect service.

 

Case citation: Boulger v. Woods, 2:17-cv-186 (S.D. Oh. Jan. 24 2018)

more

 

The content in this post was found at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/02/twitter-defamation-claim-defeated-by-a-question-mark-boulger-v-woods.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Section 230 Protects Google’s Decision Not To De-Index Content–Bennett v. Google

3 01 2018

Dawn J. Bennett was a financial advisor in major trouble with the SEC. She also has a sporting apparel company. She hired an SEO, Pierson, to improve the search engine indexing of her website. After a payment dispute, Pierson posted a blog post that starts out “DJ Bennett, the luxury sporting goods company, does not pay their employees or contractors.” Bennett demanded Google de-index the blog post, and then sued Google for defamation and more when it didn’t.

 

Case citation: Bennett v. Google, Inc., 2017 WL 2692607 (D.C.D.C. June 21, 2017). The complaint.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/06/section-230-protects-googles-decision-not-to-de-index-content-bennett-v-google.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



When Do Review Websites Commit Extortion?–Icon Health v. ConsumerAffairs

3 01 2018

Icon Health and Fitness manufactures exercise equipment, such as the well-known NordicTrack. ConsumerAffairs is a review website. Like many other review websites, its business model is predicated on payments from reviewed businesses. However, ConsumerAffairs’ specific practices raise some extra questions. The complaint made the following allegations:

more

Case citation: Icon Health and Fitness v. ConsumerAffairs.com, 2017 WL 2728413 (D. Utah June 23, 2017).

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/07/when-do-review-websites-commit-extortion-icon-health-v-consumeraffairs.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Court Can’t Ban Resident From Discussing HOA Online–Fox v. Hamptons at MetroWest Condos

3 01 2018

This is the third time this year I’m blogging about homeowners’ associations suppressing online speech (see my posts on the Revock and Milazzo cases). I’m pretty sure HOA online censorship is a growth industry (indeed, my CRFA primer calls out the housing/lodging industry as one of the places where anti-review clauses were deployed). If you’re looking for paper topics, this may be worth exploring.

This lawsuit involves the Hamptons at MetroWest condo complex in Orlando. Apparently they have some major issues with construction defects or maintenance. Fox resides in the condo community. The HOA sued him for “a continuous course of conduct designed and carried out for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, and threatening other residents, the Association, and its representatives” (unfortunately, the opinion wasn’t more specific about Fox’s prior activities). The parties settled that lawsuit. Shortly thereafter, the HOA sought a contempt order (apparently because “Fox utilized the internet to voice his displeasure over the quality of life at the Hamptons”), and the court:

ordered Fox to stop posting, circulating, and publishing any pictures or personal information about current or future residents, board members, management, employees or personnel of the management company, vendors of the Hamptons, or any other management company of the Hamptons on any website, blog, or social media. He was further ordered to take down all such information currently on any of his websites or blogs. The trial court also prohibited Fox from starting any new blogs, websites or social media websites related to the Hamptons or the Association. It informed Fox that, as his punishment, if someone asked him on his social media page if he enjoyed living at the Hamptons, he could not post a response online. Instead, he would have to call the person to express his concerns.

Oh, Florida….

Fortunately, this doesn’t fly with the appeals court. Unlike the Revock case, this court actually sees the First Amendment implications here. After waxing philosophic about the impermissibility of prior restraints, the court concludes:

more

Case citation: Fox v. Hamptons at MetroWest Condominium Association, 2017 WL 3091217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 21, 2017)

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/07/court-cant-ban-resident-from-discussing-hoa-online-fox-v-hamptons-at-metrowest-condos.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Failure to Remove User Pages–Cross v. Facebook

1 01 2018

[It’s impossible to blog about Section 230 without reminding you that Congress is on the cusp of gutting it.]

The principal plaintiff, performer Mikel Knight, was the subject of critical Facebook posts related to two fatal accidents by his tour buses. Knight demanded Facebook remove the posts. Facebook refused. Knight sued. Facebook brought an anti-SLAPP motion predicated on Section 230. Sounds like an easy win for Facebook…right?

Yes, except somehow the trial court fouled this up. The court granted the Section 230-based anti-SLAPP motion for some of the claims but not for the publicity rights-related claims–despite the fact that Facebook merely ran ads on third party content, and without any reference to the ccBill case saying Section 230 preempted publicity rights claims in the Ninth Circuit (or the Caraccioli v. Facebook case, confirming that result). The trial court’s ruling prompted my first meltdown of 2016 about the state of Section 230 jurisprudence, when I asked “WTF Is Going On With Section 230?

Fortunately, the appellate court fixes this mess. Case citation: Cross v. Facebook, Inc., 2017 WL 3404767 (Cal. App. Ct. Aug. 9, 2017)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/facebook-defeats-lawsuit-over-failure-to-remove-user-pages-cross-v-facebook.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Facebook Defeats Another Case Over Not Removing User Comments–La’Tiejira v. Facebook

1 01 2018

In terms of legal doctrine, this case is virtually identical to the Cross v. Facebook case I recently blogged. In both cases, the plaintiff sued Facebook for not removing user posts. In both cases, Facebook won an anti-SLAPP motion (CA in Cross, TX in La’Tiejira) predicated on Section 230 and the plaintiff will be writing a check to Facebook. If you’re a Section 230 aficionado, this opinion is especially worth reading (despite its prolixity) because (1) it will be published in FSupp3d, and (2) it’s filled with lots of positive judicial statements about Section 230, its breadth, etc.

Case citation: La’Tiejira v. Facebook, Inc., 2017 WL 3426039 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2017)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/facebook-defeats-another-case-over-not-removing-user-comments-latiejira-v-facebook.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Is being called a ‘patent troll’ defamatory? NH inventor files suit against banking industry to find out

1 01 2018

In a New Hampshire State Superior Court, this so-called ‘patent troll’ has decided to fight back. Automated Transactions and Dave Barcelou have filed a defamation complaint against the crème de la crème of those deemed “too big to fail” and who many might consider to be too big to defeat… The minute Barcelou was able to enforce his patented technologies in court, winning a sizable settlement from the biggest bank in his hometown of Buffalo, NY, a veritable “Who’s Who” of the financial services leaders joined forces to destroy both Barcelou and his company economically. Besides encouraging one another to ignore Automated Transaction’s demand letters, false and misleading statements started to appear in prominent business publications, which went so far as to say the company had purchased its patents, or alternatively, that the patents were invalid. Over time a unified battle cry arose from the ‘poor little community banks’ he allegedly targeted; “He’s nothing but a patent troll.”

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/15/patent-troll-defamatory-nh-inventor-files-suit-banking-industry/id=86857/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.