Remove 2024 Remove Contracts Remove False Advertising Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

Another "buy" button lawsuit over digital licenses continues

43(B)log

2024 WL 1138906, No. 15, 2024) This putative class action alleged that Amazon overcharged and “[d]eceived consumers by misrepresenting that it was selling them Digital Content when, in fact, it was really only licensing it to them[.]” weekend was ruined because Amazon suddenly lost one license. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D.

Licensing 114
article thumbnail

YouTube Isn’t Liable for User Uploads of Animal Abuse Videos–Lady Freethinker v. YouTube

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Thus, Lady Freethinker sued YouTube for breach of contract and related claims. (A Rather than engaging this contract law issue directly, the court rules for YouTube on Section 230 grounds: Lady Freethinker’s claims ultimately seek to treat Google as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another information content provider.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Measuring device (c)able under Star Athletica; ignoring Dastar, court also allows false advertising claim

43(B)log

Kitchen Cube LLC, 2024 WL 1829620, No. 17, 2024) Leszczynski invented a measuring cube that combines various measuring volumes into a single cubical structure. The Cube file was provided under a Creative Commons, non-commercial, no derivatives license. The breach of contract claim survived. Leszczynski v.

article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Upholds “Sign-in-Wrap”–Keebaugh v. Warner Bros.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a false advertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. April 26, 2024) The post Ninth Circuit Upholds “Sign-in-Wrap”–Keebaugh v. The account formation process included a screen where a user could proceed only by clicking on the “play” button: Warner Bros.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

The Court interpreted the clause on ownership of work made during a contract of service (Section 17(c)) to not apply in situations where there is a contract between equals. The Court limited the scope of Section 17(c) to apply to contracts where the relationship between the parties is akin to that of an apprenticeship.

IP 112