This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The emergence of social networking sites has presented new difficulties for the government in defending the owners’ copyrights. Every day, there are several ways that someone’s copyright is violated on social networking sites.
Socialmedia (aka Facebook) were not a part of the conversation. This raises the question: does the press publishers’ right apply to socialmedia? While socialmedia were not explicitly singled out, they seem to comfortably fall within the ISSP definition. Do socialmedia make content available?
The court’s ruling raises interesting, but troubling, questions about any government actor’s ability to enable reader comments on socialmedia. The actual details are opaque to all government actors and out of their control. The Manually Deleted Comment. Implications. This is only a district court opinion.
Today, I’m covering AB 2408, a performative “protect kids online” bill that kick kids off socialmedia entirely and ruin the Internet for adults too. This will be a major shock to millions of Californians who value and enjoy socialmedia. Monday, I covered AB 2273, the Age-Appropriate Design Code.
While Bill C-11 may ultimately become associated with the consumer implications and the CRTC’s failure to consider the market effects, for many Canadians the bill is inextricably linked to fears of user content regulation. It allows the CRTC to prescribe user-uploaded programs on a socialmedia service in multiple different situations.
This is a case focusing on ownership of socialmedia accounts. See “ SocialMedia Ownership Disputes Part II: Bridal Wear Company Takes Back Control of Instagram Account from Ex-Employee ” and “ Another Confused Entry in the SocialMedia Account Ownership Jurisprudence–JLM v. (See Teamsters Loc.
Based on the Complaint’s allegations, it appears the named Defendants – a private socialmedia company and its legal department – are not subject to liability under Section 1983. 2020) (internet media websites are not government actors under the First Amendment)… Prior blog posts on Perez’s lawsuit ( 1 , 2 ).
There are two critically important cases over “socialmedia addiction” pending in California state court and as an MDL in the federal Northern District of California. Today’s post focuses on the socialmedia defendants’ efforts to dismiss the parallel lawsuits by the school districts.
Thus, it would compel those platforms to disseminate anything and everything with a “viewpoint,” including pro-Nazi speech, medical misinformation, terrorist propaganda, and foreign government disinformation. This kind of argumentation is how a government actor disingenuously repackages censorship. Amicus Briefs. Text of HB 20.
The last time we blogged this case , the district court had sided with JLM, initially restricting Gutman’s use of the socialmedia accounts and then awarding control over the accounts to JLM. What does a 200+ year old fox have to say about who owns socialmedia accounts?). ” (Cite to Pierson v.
Note also how governments will weaponize mandatory TOS disclosures, i.e., if you didn’t tell the public them, then they wouldn’t have acted as promises to consumers, but since we compelled you to tell the public, we can now treat them as enforceable promises. No, and it’s not even close. Six4Three v. . * Kallinen v.
The trouble began when Albany radio station WGNA asked its socialmedia followers to vote for the regions best fried chicken and tagged a few contenders, including Chicken Joes, which retweeted the stations original post. Chicken Joes delivers a piping hot reality check on the risks of playing copyright roulette. Sydney Nicole LLC v.
That decision could have significant implications for this case as well as all other First Amendment challenges of states’ efforts to censor socialmedia.] The analogy is an imperfect one—socialmedia operators are arguably less involved in the curation of their websites’ content than these traditional examples.
Among other problems, the law dictates how “socialmedia platforms” can make their editorial decisions. Fortunately, a Florida federal judge blocked Florida’s socialmedia censorship law as unconstitutional. This is not unique to socialmedia.
PETA objects to these experiments and commented on TAMU’s socialmedia pages. TAMU claims that PETA’s comments were “spam” that violated TAMU’s socialmedia policy. Vigorous government-performed content moderation is a euphemism for “perpetual lawsuit-making machine.”
The opinion holds that the key parts of Florida’s socialmedia censorship law (SB 7072) likely violate the First Amendment and should remain enjoined. ” The opinion also highlights the madness of the Fifth Circuit allowing the Texas socialmedia censorship law to take effect via a 1-line order. “S.B.
Subsequently, the Committee published a report which set out a number of recommendations to Government [ Katpost here ] that included equitable remuneration for streaming, contract adjustments as well as referrals to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).
Earlier this year, the Texas legislature enacted HB 20 , a blatant attempt to censor socialmedia service. The opinion emphatically slices through the FUD that’s been generated by pro-censorial forces questioning whether socialmedia services exercise editorial discretion. The Opinion. ” [cite to USTA v.
Plaintiffs CAN’T WAIT to sue Internet services using the Texas socialmedia censorship law. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argued that the law “evidences a strong public policy to protect Texans from wrongful censorship on socialmedia platforms.” appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
The court says: The Court finds that the statements by federal lawmakers Plaintiffs point to are insufficient to plead that the government “commanded a particular result in, or otherwise participated in, [Plaintiffs’] specific case.” Government Nexus. This argument is foreclosed by Prager U. Compulsion. cite to Daniels v.
Other Posts Curing the Rare: Government Issues Tender to Acquire 17 Patented Rare Disease Medicines The threshold for procuring 127 medicines, including drugs for rare diseases, was raised by the Ministry of Finance in its August 9 circular. Nexxbase Marketing Pvt. Read her analysis on the evolving intersection of copyright law and AI!
The “Informed Consent Action Network,” and its founder Del Bigtree , ran afoul of the socialmedia services’ COVID misinformation policies. ICAN claimed that the socialmedia services took these actions due to government pressure and jawboning, especially pointing the finger at Rep.
With Bill C-11 in the final stretch – Senate approval could come this week – the government finally provided a more detailed explanation for rejecting the Senate’s user content regulation fix. It is sad that as the bill nears passage, the government doesn’t seem to understand or misleads on the impact of its own legislation.
By 'Damola Adediji Policy researchers and government studies worldwide have continued to express deep concerns surrounding Big Tech firms and their extensive collection of personal digital data, which affects how markets operate and compete. Network effects result from how the number of users in a network (e.g.,
In today’s digital era where socialmedia is at the core of all business, influencers have emerged as pivotal players in the world of marketing, wielding significant influence over their followers and the brands they represent.
Introduction What separates long-established print and electronic media from socialmedia is that it comes along with a bunch of techniques for its usage. These are tools that shaped socialmedia to be more significant than the long-established medias. How can Influencers protect their IP?
The bill regulates “socialmedia platforms,” defined as an “electronic medium” that allows “users to create, share, and view user?generated As they realize the bill’s implications, I’m hoping Minnesota parents will tell their Senators to scrap this effort. What The Bill Says. generated content.”
Using the Access to Information Act, I have now obtained a copy of the government’s internal estimates for the economic and production impact of Bill C-11 ( methodology , memorandum , PPT ), which confirm many of my suspicions. This conclusion raises both the economic and cultural impact of the bill.
Her latest trash lawsuit claimed that socialmedia, the government, and Procter & Gamble were all doing the RICO against her. With respect to the socialmedia services’ status as publishers, the court says: the plaintiff’s RICO claims depend on Twitter and Facebook’s acting as publishers. The complaint.
The government has yet to release its final regulations for the Online News Act , but recent comments from News Media Canada seemed to suggest that it is hoping to find common ground with Google , stating that it supports the company’s proposed amendments to Bill C-18 draft regulations.
A couple of years ago, Florida and Texas passed “socialmedia censorship” laws. The laws were not subtle–the bill titles literally told the world that the legislatures were censoring socialmedia. NetChoice appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
Two More Courts Tell Litigants That SocialMedia Services Aren’t State Actors. Government Jawboning Doesn’t Turn Internet Services into State Actors–Doe v. Anti-Zionist Loses Lawsuit Over SocialMedia Account Suspensions–Martillo v. Are SocialMedia Services “State Actors” or “Common Carriers”?
General Business Law Section 394-ccc, the 2022 law that requires socialmedia platforms to disclose their editorial policies towards “hateful conduct.” It is definitely counterintuitive to oppose transparency requirements due to our strong regulatory and social norms in favor of transparency.
The government escalated the battle over Bill C-18 yesterday, announcing that it was suspending advertising on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms due the company’s decision to comply with the bill by blocking news sharing and its reluctance to engage in further negotiations on the issue.
However, those arguments were more theoretical than empirical; there weren’t a lot of high-profile examples of a mass-market consumer service deploying this strategy. 7) Governments loot Google and Facebook under the pretense of “saving” journalism. The money doesn’t go to the government. Incredible.
The CRTC’s documents suggest that either it already knows what the government is going to say or it doesn’t care. To pick just one of many examples, the Commission is consulting on the meaning of “socialmedia service”: Q5. How should the Commission define “socialmedia service”? Who will be left?
While stakeholders and experts struggled to comprehend this ban, on October 5, 2022, word spread that Nigeria’s Federal Government had sued Meta over marketing and was seeking 30 billion naira (about 70 million dollars). The Nigerian government’s attempt to address this fact may be taking on too much.
The court disagrees: Even assuming the Association’s content was indeed demoted in search results and on socialmedia platforms, the technology companies may have taken those actions for any number of reasons unrelated to Representative Schiff. Government Jawboning Doesn’t Turn Internet Services into State Actors–Doe v.
This is one of the dozens of lawsuits alleging that socialmedia services addict kids. In a statement sure to spook every socialmedia service, the court finds “the forum selection clause invalid because it is procedurally unconscionable, substantively unconscionable, and unenforceable against a minor.”
Nevertheless, she claimed Twitter conspired with the government and that converted Twitter into a state actor. Government Jawboning Doesn’t Turn Internet Services into State Actors–Doe v. Two More Courts Tell Litigants That SocialMedia Services Aren’t State Actors. Violation of the First Amendment. Padilla , Doe v.
If the Government takes on board this recommendation it would mean, as Tom Gray put it “that for the first time ever, our entire music community get something” - since it provides for non-featured artists, who typically transfer their rights in exchange for a one-off session fee rather than a royalty.
Without First Amendment guardrails in the EU, the DSA represents a comprehensive government intrusion into the editorial processes of UGC services–with surely more intrusions to come. The post New Essay Comparing “Due Process” Approaches in the DMCA and DSA appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
Socialmedia platforms present countless opportunities for companies looking to connect to consumers and clients in real time. Foley Hoag will present a 60-minute webinar offering guidance on socialmedia issue spotting for in-house legal practitioners, with a focus on intellectual property, publicity rights and advertising.
There was no nuance to the law enforcement effort to censor speech; it was the raw exercise of government power, coupled with a realistic threat of incarceration for noncompliance. The notion that the long arm of the government—redaction pen in hand—can extend to this sort of incomplete speech is plainly wrong.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content