Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Section 230
A fashion model who sued Amazon, Walmart and Ulta for using her likeness in their advertising is considering appealing a decision against her in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan (see 2301260040), her attorney said in a statement Friday. "This is an important matter of first impression that is of great importance to those whose likenesses have been used online without consent,” said attorney Scott Burroughs of Doniger/Burroughs, who represents model Patty Ratermann. “We plan to explore all options, including appeal." U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that Amazon, Walmart and Ulta are immune under Communications Decency Act Section 230.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act “is no shield,” for social media companies’ conduct, said a public nuisance and negligence complaint (docket 2:23-cv-172) filed against the top social media companies Thursday by Mesa Public Schools, the largest public school district in Arizona with 58,000 students in 78 schools.
A fashion model can’t sue Amazon, Walmart and Ulta for using her likeness in advertising because the companies are immune under Communications Decency Act Section 230, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman for Southern New York in Manhattan ruled in an opinion and order Jan. 17 (docket 1:22-cv-00325).
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Google wants the U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley for Eastern California in Sacramento to dismiss the Republican National Committee’s allegations that Google is deliberately channeling the RNC’s fundraising emails to recipients’ Gmail spam folders out of “partisan animus” (see 2210260080), said its motion Monday (docket 2:22-cv-01904). The RNC alleged its emails wound up in spam especially during the crucial end-of-month periods when its fundraising activities reached their peak.
The Supreme Court requested DOJ’s input in three cases on social media laws in Texas and Florida, setting up potential high court review this fall (see 2301030062).
The Supreme Court can’t rule that Internet platforms are liable for their recommendations without also applying that requirement to search engines, wrecking the architecture of the internet and damaging the economy, said a host of amicus briefs last week supporting Google in content moderation case Gonzalez v. Google (docket 21-1333).
A DOJ filing in U.S. Supreme Court Section 230 case Twitter v. Taamneh “wrongly” narrows the circumstances under which entities can be held liable for aiding terrorists, said a group of law professors who specialize in counterterrorism, in an amicus brief posted in docket 21-1496 Wednesday. DOJ erred in saying plaintiffs arguing that an entity had violated the Antiterroism Act or the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act needed to show that an entity had “anything more than an arms-length transactional relationship” with terrorists, the filing said. Such allegations “are not necessary” to state a claim under the anti-terrorism statutes, the brief said. The question of whether an entity provided substantial assistance to ISIS “turns not on whether its services were bespoke; it turns on whether the services had a meaningful impact on ISIS’s ability to carry out illicit activities,” the filing said.
A Supreme Court ruling in Gonzalez v. Google that an internet platform can be liable for the content it recommends (see 2301130028) would increase the cost and prevalence of content moderation, chill speech, step on congressional authority and ignore other routes for curbing abuses by tech companies, said amicus briefs supporting Google (docket 21-1333) this week . Public Knowledge, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology and others weighed in on the case.