Disney's first amended copyright complaint against Redbox for selling codes that allow streaming Disney movies (see 1804100002) shows Disney doesn't respect the different contractual requirements of operating in the physical and digital worlds, Redbox said in a docket 17-cv-08655-DDP-AGR motion to dismiss (in Pacer) filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Redbox said consumers aren't originating a new transaction online when they redeem on a Disney website a digital code previously bought in a disc Combo Pack. It said 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent is that in a brick-and-mortar transaction, it takes more than just fine print intended to limit resale to create a binding limitation on alienation. And it said the amended Disney complaint is an attempt to back out of completed brick-and-mortal sales by employing website license terms barring redemption of codes by consumers who didn't assent to the terms at purchase. Redbox said Disney's infringement claim against Redbox customers, based on unenforceable contract terms, fails, so its contributory infringement claim against Redbox should be dismissed. Disney outside counsel didn't comment Friday.

A lawsuit challenging searches of electronic devices at the U.S. border can proceed, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said Thursday. Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts sued the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 11 travelers. The individuals’ smartphones and laptops were searched without warrants, the groups said. “EFF and ACLU can move ahead to prove that our plaintiffs’ Fourth and First Amendment rights were violated when their devices were seized and searched without a warrant,” EFF Staff Attorney Sophia Cope said.

The Supreme Court should review Apple’s attempt to block a class-action lawsuit alleging it monopolized the distribution of App Store applications, inflating consumer prices by preventing third parties from selling apps directly to consumers, DOJ said Tuesday. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the lawsuit could proceed, citing federal antitrust law. DOJ claims the lower court misapplied the Illinois Brick rule, which prevents indirect purchasers from seeking certain antitrust damages passed on by third parties -- in this case the developers. Apple has argued only the developers, not consumers, can sue in this case. Applying the Illinois Brick rule to these types of e-commerce sales “will significantly affect the private enforcement of federal antitrust law, in part because other existing and emerging e-commerce platforms use similar models,” DOJ said. “The importance of the question presented will only grow as commerce continues to move online.”

Without FCC input and guidance on how it would view potential fixes to Dish Network de facto control issues, the court-ordered process giving the designated entities a chance to fix those control issues (see 1708290012) could end up "as nothing more than a 'gotcha' process" aimed at having Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless fail, the two say. In a Universal Licensing System filing Friday, they said the remand proceeding needs changing or it could result in further litigation and thus legal uncertainty about the AWS-3 licenses SNR and Northstar won but weren't granted. The two say they are in talks with investors about fixing the Dish control issues and plan to submit their cure filings to the FCC by June 8. They say FCC guidance "is appropriate and legally required" since the agency's 2015 order sets out its de facto control concerns but doesn't say how to address them. They said the FCC's not taking part in discussions on de facto control issues is contrary to agency precedent and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision. They contend the agency already has standards on good faith, character and candor and those provide benchmarks for assessing the conduct of parties in the negotiation process. SNR and Northstar say that they have made notable changes to their structures and agreements (see 1804040004) shows the are acting in good faith. They say if a DE applicant won't be allowed to engage with agency staff to cure de facto control issues after an auction, the agency needs to rule on the applicants' qualifications for bidding credits before the auction. The FCC didn't comment. A draft item on the DEs' applications for new AWS-3 licenses is on circulation (see 1804200058). The filing recapped a meeting of SNR and Northstar representatives with outgoing Commissioner Mignon Clyburn.

The Supreme Court will hear an online privacy case in which Google is asking the high court to uphold an $8.5 million settlement directed to charitable and academic organizations instead of alleged victims, the court said Monday (see 1708230003). Google agreed to an $8.5 million class-action settlement in 2013 with 129 million plaintiffs, who claimed the platform violated their privacy by revealing personal search engine data to third parties. A lower court upheld the settlement. Google agreed to a "cy-pres" deal, with $3.2 million earmarked for attorneys' fees and $5.3 million for academic and charitable organizations, who agreed to use the money to increase public awareness, education or internet privacy R&D. A cy-pres designation is used when the individual payments are considered too small to justify direct compensation for plaintiffs. Challenging the settlement in Frank v. Gaos is Competitive Enterprise Institute Litigation Director Ted Frank, who claimed the settlement was enough to fund a claims process or lottery distribution to class members but "improperly favored the third-party charities.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was right to uphold the settlement, Google said, as the cy-pres awards “will benefit a much greater proportion [and quite possibly all] of the class.” Challengers raised issues about Google’s business relationships with most of the cy pres recipients, which include Stanford University, Harvard University and the World Privacy Forum.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent makes "an absolute mess of the repeat-infringer requirement" of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that will haunt it and lower courts, adult film distributor Ventura Content said in a docket 13-56332 petition for rehearing en banc (in Pacer) filed Friday. A majority of the 9th Circuit in March upheld a lower court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Motherless, which operates a website for user sharing of pornography and which Ventura sued for copyright infringement, with Judge Johnnie Rawlinson dissenting. Ventura said the majority members of the panel improperly followed Rule 56, covering summary judgment, and Motherless clearly didn't have or follow a legally sufficient repeat-infringer policy because company assertions about having such a policy were repeatedly proven false. Motherless outside counsel didn't comment Monday. Copyright lawyer Sarah Bro of McDermott Will blogged Friday that, per the decision, Motherless didn't forfeit safe harbor protection when it screened and removed illegal content like child pornography or organized content into categories, and the court found Motherless' removal of Ventura content after being sued was expeditious enough to comply with safe harbor requirements.

Sony’s introduction and subsequent termination of the Dash personal internet viewer provoked a federal complaint Friday alleging the company is guilty of fraud and concealment for not telling consumers it wouldn’t go on supporting the product. The claims arise from the company's decision in July “to unilaterally and without recourse cut off its support” of the Dash, said the complaint (in Pacer), filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, and seeking class-action status. Sony terminated all functionality on the Dash through a “forced firmware update,” said the complaint. “As many disgruntled purchasers have posted on the internet, they are left with a paperweight, which cost between $100 and $200.” Consumers wouldn't have bought the Dash “if they knew that just within a few years,” Sony would “choose to stop supporting the product,” which was “only functional for a commercially unreasonable time,” it said. Introduced at January 2010 CES, the Dash tapped into cloud-based content, with no onboard storage (see 1103110137). Sony representatives didn’t comment Friday.

The Supreme Court ruled Patent and Trademark Office inter partes review (IPR) process is constitutional, in Oil States v. Greene's Energy Tuesday, drawing praise from the Computer & Communications Industry Association. The court “confirmed that [PTO] has the power to double-check its own work,” said CCIA President Ed Black: The IPR “process upheld today has made it less expensive for companies to defend themselves from abusive patent litigation and has helped strike down patents that never should have issued in the first place.” Calling IPR "the bedrock of the America Invents Act," Software & Information Industry Association CEO Ken Wasch said the ruling "upheld both the right of Congress to regulate and reform the patent system, and the ability of our members to bring challenges to poor-quality patents so they can continue to innovate without spending millions in unnecessary litigation.”

DirecTV's combination with Time Warner is the chief source of anticompetitive harm that would come out of New AT&T, DOJ said in a docket 17-2511 opposition (in Pacer) filed Thursday in response to DirecTV's seeking to be dismissed as a defendant from Justice's antitrust lawsuit (see 1804170031). DOJ told U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia it wouldn't have sued if not for AT&T's DirecTV ownership, and the subsidiary is a proper defendant since the court might grant relief against DirecTV to ensure continued competition in the pay-TV universe. The department said it's common for non-acquiring entities like DirecTV to be defendants in Clayton Act Section 7 cases.

A Washington state lawsuit shut down a tech support scam from India, said state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) Thursday. Last summer, King County Superior Court entered $6.3 million in judgments against iYogi India and its U.S. subsidiary. U.S. president Vishal Dhar agreed to cease illegal practices in Washington state. “Information obtained by the Attorney General’s Office indicates iYogi India has shed most or all of its employees and is largely defunct,” it said. “The company’s U.S.-based operation appears to have shut down entirely.” The AG office said it’s deciding how to collect payment from iYogi’s U.S. and Indian entities, and later will determine a process for returning recovered restitution to consumers. The Indian company allegedly deceived consumers into believing it was part of companies like Apple, Microsoft, Norton and other big hardware and software companies to gain access to their computers. The company apparently used proprietary software to misidentify “infected files” to persuade consumers to buy iYogi support plans and antivirus software. Microsoft partners with local authorities to fight such scams and applauds the result of the suit, said Microsoft Assistant General Counsel-Digital Crimes Unit Courtney Gregoire. Since 2015, the Microsoft unit “received more than 300,000 customer reports about tech support scams carried out by fraudsters claiming to be from a reputable tech company,” she said.