A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso

IMDb is challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 1687 (“AB 1687”), a California law requiring IMDb to remove ages from its website upon request from paid subscribers, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Facebook Blocks British Insurance Company from Basing Premiums on Posts and Likes

By Javier Careaga– Edited by Mila Owen

Admiral Insurance has created an initiative called firstcarquote, which analyzes Facebook activity of first-time car owners. The firstcarquote algorithm determines risk based on personality traits and habits that are linked to safe driving. Firstcarquote was recalled two hours before its official launch and then was launched with reduced functionality after Facebook denied authorization, stating that the initiative breaches Facebook’s platform policy.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Airbnb challenges New York law regulating short-term rentals

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari

Airbnb filed a complaint in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking to “enjoin and declare unlawful the enforcement against Airbnb” of the recent law that prohibits  the advertising of short-term rentals on Airbnb and other similar websites.  Airbnb argued that the new law violated its rights to free speech and due process, and that it was inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online intermediaries that host or republish speech from a range of liabilities.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Medtronic v. Bosch post-Cuozzo: PTAB continues to have the final say on inter partes review

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) reaffirmed its earlier order, dismissing Medtronic’s appeal against a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB had dismissed Medtronic’s petition for inter partes review of Bosch’s patents, since Medtronic had failed to disclose all real parties in interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2).

 

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

California DMV Discuss Rules on Autonomous Vehicles

DOJ Release Guidelines on CFAA Prosecutions

Illinois Supreme Court Rule in Favor of State Provisions Requiring Disclosure of Online Identities of Sex Offenders

Research Shows Concerns for Crucial Infrastructure Information Leaks

Read More...

Neiman MarcusBy Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss

Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, No. 14-3122, 2015 WL 4394814 (7th Cir. July 20, 2015)

The Seventh Circuit reversed the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, which had held that Neiman Marcus cardholders who fell victim to a data breach, but had either been compensated by their credit card companies for any fraudulent activities or had not suffered fraudulent activities on their accounts at all, did not have standing to bring a putative class action against the retailer.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed, finding that the cardholders did have standing: the allegation of impending future harm and the concrete injury they had suffered in taking steps to mitigate or prevent that harm is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III. In so holding, the court rejected the district court’s “overreading” of Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, which has buttressed many 12(b)(1) dismissals in data breach class action suits. In Clapper, the Supreme Court found that a group of human rights organizations could not assert standing based on suspicions that the government had intercepted their communications with terrorists. The Seventh Circuit urged the lower courts to recognize an important distinction between mere suspicion of injury and a “substantial risk” of injury. Substantial risk of injury, the court held, was not “jettison[ed]” by the Supreme Court, since a substantial risk “may prompt plaintiffs to reasonably incur costs to mitigate or avoid that harm.” The court accordingly held that in the case of a data breach, where “the purpose . . . is, sooner or later, to make fraudulent charges or assume those consumers’ identities,” plaintiffs may properly assert Article III standing based on a substantial risk of injury.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 27 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Magnifying GlassBy Kasey Wang – Edited by Ariane Moss

State v. Rindfleisch, 857 N.W.2d 456 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014)

Link to opinion (hosted by Leagle)

Kelly Rindfleisch is serving a six-month sentence for misconduct in public office while working for then-County Executive Scott Walker. Rindfleisch claimed that the government violated her Fourth Amendment rights while searching her emails for evidence for a different case. The government, she asserted, obtained warrants that “lacked sufficient particularity” and were general warrants. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed her sentence. After the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear her case, Rindfleisch filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

In early 2010, Rindfleisch was hired as a Milwaukee County employee working for then-County Executive Scott Walker.  On October 20, 2010, a Milwaukee County District Attorney submitted an affidavit for a warrant to search Rindfleisch’s emails for correspondence from Rindfleisch’s colleague, on suspicion that the colleague had committed a crime. The warrant authorized the seizure of all of Rindfleisch’s emails from Google and Yahoo! servers. The government used evidence obtained from this warrant to charge Rindfleisch with misconduct in public office. Rindfleisch pled guilty and appealed, citing a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Rindfleisch’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the “warrants in question were based on probable cause established by affidavit, were authorized by a judge, and particularly described the place to be searched and items to be seized.” In discussing probable cause, the court cited a similar Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Adjani, in which a search through a defendant’s emails for evidence of a different suspect’s wrongdoing led to the defendant’s conviction. In discussing “sufficient particularity,” the court found that it was sufficient for the warrants to describe specific email addresses within Google’s and Yahoo’s servers.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 20 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Russia & ChinaBy Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

The legislatures in Russia and China took steps this month to tighten regulations over Internet companies with access to user data. In Russia, President Vladmir Putin signed a law ensuring a “right to be forgotten” reminiscent of the European Court of Justice’s ruling in May 2014. And in China, the National People’s Congress released a draft cybersecurity bill that would formalize and strengthen the State’s long-standing regulation of websites and network operators.

On July 14th, 2015, Russian President Vladmir Putin signed into law a piece of legislation that guarantees Russian citizens a so-called “right to be forgotten,” allowing them to selectively edit the history that is unearthed when internet users search for their names. Beginning on January 1, 2016, Russian citizens can request that a search engine remove a link if it (1) reveals information that “violates their personal data, (2) contains ‘unverified information’, or (3) contains information that is ‘no longer relevant.’” Affected websites include any search engines that serve targeted advertisements to Russian citizens, such as Google, Yahoo! and Yandex. Search engines will have up to ten days to respond to takedown requests, and failure to respond to requests within the time frame, or an erroneous refusal to remove content, will result in litigation and potential fines.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 20 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

JOLT - AvvoLogoBy Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

Thomson v. Doe, No. 72321-9-1 (Washington Court of Appeals, July 6, 2015)

Link to opinion (hosted by Citizen.org)

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the King County Superior Court’s denial of a motion to compel disclosure of an anonymous critic’s identity.

The Court of Appeals held that—absent evidence of defamation—a third party website is not required to unmask an anonymous defendant who posted a negative review on the plaintiff’s profile. In so holding, the court adopted an analysis similar to the widely cited Dendrite test for the showing a defamation plaintiff must make on a motion to compel disclosure of a Doe defendant’s identity. Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001). Commentators have called this a victory for anonymity: before the court will unmask an anonymous internet poster in a defamation suit, the plaintiff must provide evidence supporting her claim.

Lexology and the ABA Journal provide an overview of the case. The popular tech website GeekWire has celebrated the decision for the protection it offers to anonymous internet posters, calling it a “victory for anonymous commenters.”

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 20 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Amazon LogoBy Yaping Zhang – Edited by Henry Thomas

On July 6, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 2-1 opinion allowing watch manufacturer Multi Time Machine (MTM) to continue pursuing its legal action against Amazon.com. The Court reversed the summary judgment order granted by the Central District Court of California and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the likelihood of confusion created by Amazon.com’s search results presented genuine issues of material fact. This case offers an interesting conflict of opinions on how trademark law applies in e-commerce scenarios.

MTM manufactures high-end, military-style watches, which are not sold on Amazon.com because MTM wants to maintain an image as a high-end exclusive brand. When consumers search for MTM watches, they see watches from other brands instead without being notified that Amazon does not sell MTM watches. Unlike Amazon.com, competitors Buy.com and Overstock.com clearly announce that no search results match the “MTM Special Ops” query before listing competitors’ products. The Central District Court of California granted summary judgment to Amazon, holding that an analysis of the eight factors set forth in the 1979 case of AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats established that there was no likelihood of confusion in Amazon.com’s use of MTM’s trademark in its search engine or display of search results.

Applying the same Sleekcraft factors, the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that under the doctrine of initial interest confusion – which applies “not where a customer is confused about the source of a product at the time of purchase, but earlier in the shopping process” – triable issues of fact existed.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 13 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
California Flag

IMDb Challenges Cali

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso IMDb.com, Inc. v. ...

Facebook International

Facebook Blocks Brit

By Javier Careaga – Edited by Mila Owen Many insurance companies ...

computer-typing1

Airbnb challenges Ne

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari Complaint to Declare ...

Unknown

Medtronic v. Bosch p

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Li Wang – Edited by Henry Thomas California DMV Discuss ...