Blogging: A Hotbed of Litigation

23 08 2010

Blogging has touched off a surge in litigation by those who feel they were defamed or otherwise treated poorly by Internet postings.



The content in this post was found at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/23/blogging-a-hotbed-of-litigation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Judge: Facebook comments were “puerile,” but not defamation

28 07 2010

A New York Supreme Court has dismissed a defamation suit over a private Facebook group that existed primarily for the purpose of mocking a teenaged girl. In the decision, Judge Randy Sue Marber wrote that the group’s malicious postings, which were made by a number of teenagers, were clearly not statements of fact—not to mention that they weren’t even public.

Read the rest of this article...


The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/judge-facebook-comments-were-puerile-but-not-defamation.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Recent Anti-SLAPP Developments

1 07 2010

By Eric Goldman

As you may recall, I have endorsed HR 4364, the Proposed Federal Anti-SLAPP Bill. This blog post catches up on some recent anti-SLAPP developments both in and out of the courtroom.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/07/recent_antislap.htmand was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Judge Kocoras Cuts Down $11MM Award Against Spamhaus to $27,000 — e360 v. Spamhaus

15 06 2010

[Post by Venkat]

e360 Insight, LLC v. The Spamhaus Project, (N.D. Ill June 11, 2010)

e360 v. Spamhaus is one of these cases that’s been around so long it feels like an old friend. A few years ago, e360 got some press for winning an eleven million dollar damage award against Spamhaus. In a less heralded development, following a bench trial on damages, last week a district judge modified e360’s damage award down to only $27,000 on its tortious interference and defamation claims. I’m not sure what it is about spam that spawns wasteful litigation, but this is yet another example of a lengthy spam dispute which consumed a lot of resources but which ultimately ended with a whimper.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/e360_prevails_a_1.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Online Venters Rejoice: Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Taking Shape

1 06 2010

The NYT on Tuesday has a story on the trend of companies fighting back against consumers who vent online, mostly in the form of defamation suits.

more



The content in this post was found at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/01/online-venters-rejoice-federal-anti-slapp-law-taking-shape/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Website Gets 230 Immunity Despite Claim of Site Content Accuracy–Milo v. Martin

30 04 2010

By Eric Goldman

Milo v. Martin, 2010 WL 1708895 (Tex. App. Ct. April 29, 2010)

This case involves allegedly defamatory “guestbook” messages posted by unknown users to a website entitled “The Watchdog.” Framed like that, the precedent says the website should get an easy and uncontroversial 47 USC 230 dismissal (and IMO Rule 11 sanctionable).

The plaintiffs try to get around 230 by citing The Watchdog’s first page, which contained the following statements:

* 47 USC 230 and Consumer Protection Talk Notes
* 47 USC 230 Talk at Fordham
* Ninth Circuit Mucks Up 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence….AGAIN!?–Barnes v. Yahoo

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/04/website_gets_23.htmand was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Crowdsourced Ads May Not Be Protected by 47 USC 230–Subway v. Quiznos

8 03 2010

By Eric Goldman

Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. QIP Holders LLC, 2010 WL 669870 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2010). My prior post on this case.

Today’s post involves subway sandwiches instead of burgers, but it turns out that subway sandwich restaurants’ competition over claims of having more meat is no less stiff. Quiznos kicked off the war in 2006 by launching a “double meat” line of sandwiches. Quiznos ran two TV ads comparing the meat in its sandwiches to Subway’s and set up a website soliciting individuals to make and submit their own comparative digital video ads. Subway was not amused and ultimately filed a seventh amended complaint (!) over Quiznos’ ad campaigns. (What a patient judge).

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/crowdsourced_ad.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Advertiser Protection under CDA Section 230 for User-Generated Online Contest Submissions Will Go to Jury

5 03 2010

[this case is not an IP case as such… the issue is “false and deceptive advertising.” But the ruling on CDA 230 aspect is relevant for new media law. ell]

A hard-fought battle between two sandwich franchises has yielded an opinion dealing with the application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to videos submitted as part of an online contest. The result is an unusual ruling that sends to a jury the issue of whether the advertiser that sponsored the contest was an “information content provider” with respect to the videos, and thus is ineligible for CDA Section 230 protection. Doctor’s Associates v. QIP Holder LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14687 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2010).

more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2010/03/articles/online-content/advertiser-protection-under-cda-section-230-for-usergenerated-online-contest-submissions-will-go-to-jury/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Google Dismisses Some Claims in Jurin v. Google and Gets Some Attorneys’ Fees

4 03 2010

By Eric Goldman

Jurin v. Google, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18208 (E.D. Cal. March 1, 2010)

Jurin v. Google is one of the 10 outstanding trademark-based claims against Google’s AdWords programs–in this case, over advertiser purchases of Jurin’s trademark “styrotrim.” This particular lawsuit took a sizable hit, as Google successfully got a quick dismissal of several claims. As an added perk, the judge awarded Google $6k in legal fees for harassing litigation behavior.

The court dismisses Jurin’s Lanham Act false designation of origin claim because Google never represents that it produces Styrotrim.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/google_gets_dis.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Forwarding Defamatory Email with Introductory Comments Protected by 47 USC 230–Phan v. Pham

26 02 2010

By Eric Goldman

Phan v. Pham, 2010 WL 658244 (Cal. App. Ct. Feb. 25, 2010)

This is the first 230 case I’m blogging about in 2010 (see my 2009 recap), and what a nice ruling to start the year. The facts are crisp and clean: An email author wrote an allegedly defamatory email about plaintiff Phan and sent it to a group of recipients, including defendant Pham. Pham then forwarded the email with the following additional comments to at least one recipient:

more.

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/02/forwarding_defa.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.