JOLT Digest

District Court Dismisses Facebook User’s Claims that Account Termination Violated First and Fourteenth Amendments and Various State Laws
By Samantha Kuhn – Edited by Matt Gelfand

Young v. Facebook, Inc., 5:10-cv-03579-JF/PVT (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010)
Opinion hosted by Justia.com

On October 25, 2010, the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss Karen Beth Young’s complaint that, in terminating her account, Facebook violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as state contract and tort law, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court has granted Young a thirty-day period during which she may file an amended complaint.

With respect to the claim that Facebook deprived Young of equal protection by failing to accommodate her need for human interaction (resulting from bi-polar disorder), the court held that because Young failed to allege a deprivation of rights “under color of state law,” she has not stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In so holding, the court noted that the simple existence of contracts and relationships between Facebook and the government are insufficient to establish a claim under § 1983. Young, the court suggests, would have to show some nexus between those specific contracts and the alleged rights violations or, if certain Facebook activities amounted to state action, a causal relationship between those activities and the injuries suffered.

With respect to the claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and fraud, the court held that Young failed to state a claim on all four counts due to the absence of applicable contractual obligations on Facebook’s part, an explicit disclaimer in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that released responsibility for safety from third party conduct, and a lack of specificity in Young’s allegations. In addition to the specific shortcomings of Young’s pleading in this case, the court referred to the policy concerns manifested in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which severely restricts the liability of interactive computer service providers for content posted by third parties.

A brief summary of the claims and bases for dismissal can be found in Evan Brown’s article on the Internet Cases blog. Eric Goldman provides an additional overview of the court’s conclusions and takes issue with the court’s concession that, had Young argued that there was a bad faith or arbitrary cancellation of her account, this could potentially constitute a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (more…)

By Emily Hoort

Attorneys General Demand Removal of Craigslist’s “Adult Services” Section

ScrippsNews reports that attorneys general in at least 18 states have demanded that Craigslist remove its adult services section. A failure to comply with this request will likely lead to a court battle, with possible charges that Craigslist is aiding and abetting illegal activity. There may also be legislative action calling for reforms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Communications Decency Act. These statutes generally protect websites, such as Craigslist, from third parties’ illegal actions on their sites. Some observers point out that removing the adult services section will likely shift illegal sexual solicitations elsewhere, and will result in losing many of the screening benefits of a website such as Craigslist. Indeed, according to The Boston Globe, Craigslist has many screening and tracking safeguards in place that are stronger than other classified advertisement platforms.

Update: The New York Times reports that Craigslist has blocked access to its “adult services” content, replacing the link with a “censored” label.

Individuals Can Pursue Lawsuits Against Companies Who Label Products with Expired Patent Numbers

The Wall Street Journal reports that on Tuesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington held, in Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, that patent lawyer Raymond Stauffer can pursue claims against Brooks Brothers stemming from the apparel chain marking its bow ties with expired patent numbers. It is illegal to erroneously label products with the wrong patent numbers, and individuals are allowed to sue for such mislabeling on the government’s behalf. Penalties range up to $500 per item, and successful plaintiffs are allowed to keep one-half of all penalties; they must submit the other half to the government. The Federal Circuit’s decision reversed a lower court ruling that dismissed Mr. Stauffer’s case for lack of standing. Bloomberg notes that this decision strengthens similar lawsuits against more than 350 companies.

Hewlett-Packard to Pay $55 Million to Settle Kickback Allegations

The Wall Street Journal reports that Hewlett-Packard has agreed to pay the U.S. Government $55 million to settle allegations that H-P paid illegal kickbacks to other companies for recommending H-P products to federal agencies. The Economic Times notes that this Justice Department case arose after whistleblowers revealed that H-P and other companies paid each other “influencer fees” for recommending their products to U.S. government agencies. H-P denies any wrongdoing, stating that it entered this $55 million settlement because it believes it will be best for stakeholders to resolve the matter and move forward.

By Jyoti Uppuluri

Nokia Sues Apple for Patent Infringement Related to iPhone

On October 22, Nokia filed a suit against Apple in Delaware federal court, alleging that the iPhone infringes patents held by Nokia. The New York Times reports that the specific patents deal with the GSM and UMTS wireless standards utilized by the iPhone for voice and data communication, both of which were developed in part by Nokia. The Wall Street Journal notes that the suit might be a strategic response to the iPhone’s increasing momentum in Europe and Asia. Nokia could gain a two-percent royalty on each iPhone sold if the suit succeeds.

Tennessee Couple Is Entitled to Unmask Anonymous Blogger

On October 8, a Tennessee state court held in Swartz v. Does that a couple is entitled to know the identity of the individual who posted critical statements about them in an online blog. Ars Technica notes that the blogger’s claim to protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act likely failed because the blog induced readers to spy on the Swartzes and report back on the blog. The Citizen Media Law Project points out that the legal standard used by the judge in this case was “highly protective of anonymous online speech,” but that the Swartzes provided “sufficient evidence in support of their claims of wrongdoing to outweigh the anonymous blogger’s right to anonymity.”

Charges against Craigslist for their “Adult Services” section dismissed by Illinois District Court
By Ye (Helen) He – Edited by Eric Engle

Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., No. 09 C 1385 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009)
Opinion

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held, on Craigslist’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, that Craigslist is not liable for the content posted by its viewers. The court cited Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, concluding that Craigslist, as an Internet classified ads service provider, is immune to civil liability for third party content. The court found Craigslist analogous to an ISP or phone service provider and thus not liable for users’ content and conduct, as opposed to, as plaintiff contended, a newspaper or magazine which may be held liable for its ads.

Bloomberg.com and Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog summarize the case.

(more…)

Social Networks Shielded from Liability for Sexual Assaults

By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited By Amanda Rice
Julie Doe II et al. v. MySpace Inc., Case No. B205643, (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2009)
Opinion

On June 30, the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles affirmed the judgment of the lower court and held that online social networks and other websites cannot be held liable for a sexual assault on a minor that stems from an online meeting. The court rejected claims made by the parents of four girls who were between thirteen and fifteen years old when they created MySpace profiles. The court followed Fifth Circuit precedent, Doe I v. Myspace, which JOLT Digest’s Anna Volftsun previously summarized in May 2008.

The Court of Appeals held that girls who are sexually assaulted by men they first contact on MySpace cannot seek damages from the social-networking website, which is protected from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “[T]hey want MySpace to ensure that sexual predators do not gain access to (i.e., communicate with) minors on its Web site. That type of activity-to restrict or make available certain material-is expressly covered by section 230,” wrote the court.

Ars Technica provides an overview of the case. CNET and Reuters also summarize the main points of the case. Eric Goldman offers a nice in-depth analysis of the case and emphasizes the defense’s use of Roomates.com precedent. (more…)