This is one of several copyright cases brought by tattoo artists against videogame makers for depicting athletes bearing their tattoos. This particular case, involving tattoo artist Hayden, videogame NBA 2K, and basketball players like LeBron James, reached a jury. The jury needed only 90 minutes to determine that the defendants had proven their implied license defense, ending the case. The jury verdict form doesn’t provide any more details, but one likely inference is that getting a tattoo comes with an implied license allowing the tattooed person to be depicted in the world, including for co ..read more

I never blogged the dual state and federal rulings in the Social Media Addiction cases from last Fall. I wrote up a 4,000 word draft about the state court ruling, but the federal ruling came out before I finished it. I couldn’t blog just the state case without discussing the new development, so I planned to modify my blog post on the state court ruling to compare/contrast the federal ruling. However, life intervened, and my massive blog post got stuck in draft mode. I can’t easily track the state court litigation, but the federal litigation is a sight to behold. It’s an MDL where the plaintiff ..read more

This is a routine jawboning case. Facebook and Twitter allegedly shut down Hart’s accounts for disseminating COVID misinformation. Hart claims he was targeted by the government. The district court dismissed the case (1, 2). The Ninth Circuit affirms in a brief memo opinion. The court says simply: “As private companies, Twitter and Facebook are not subject to the Constitution’s constraints.” (Cite to O’Handley). Hart alleged Twitter and Facebook engaged in joint actions with the government. However, “Facebook and Twitter’s rights to moderate his posts arise from their user agreements with Hart ..read more

Brinan Weeks claims to be a comedian. I strongly suspect this lawsuit is an extension of his routine or that he’s using it to generate new material. He claims: he purchased a device called a Stamina Training Unit (STU) from the fleshlight.com website (the website) on or around September 21, 2021, on the basis of Interactive’s claims that the device would help him “perform better,” “last longer,” and “improve [his] sexual stamina.” Despite his frequent use of the product over several months, Weeks alleged “there was no improvement in [his] sexual performance or stamina.” Typically, allegatio ..read more

This is another case asserting that Internet access providers are liable for their subscribers’ copyright infringements. The IAP, Frontier, argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Taamneh modified the venerable standards for secondary copyright infringement. The court doesn’t agree. The court summarizes its holding: The Court declines to graft an analysis of secondary criminal liability for aiding and abetting terrorism onto the well-established branch of law governing secondary liability for copyright infringement. Contributory Infringement The court explains that the plaintiffs have alle ..read more

After a multi-year hiatus due to the pandemic, the Internet Law Works-in-Progress conference is returning! (Some background about the series). The conference provides a venue for authors of Internet Law papers (broadly conceived) to workshop their drafts and get pre-publication feedback from peers. We are also putting together a game night that should feature a very rare gaming experience you won’t want to miss. The conference will be hosted by the High Tech Law Institute and held at Santa Clara University School of Law on March 8, 2025. We’ll circulate a call for participation with more detai ..read more

This case involves “defeat devices.” When installed on a car, they suppress or bypass emission controls designed to protect the environment. It’s terrible that anyone uses defeat devices because we urgently must do more, not less, to prevent climate change. Section 203 of the Clean Air Act bans the manufacture or sales of defeat devices. (Yes, I struggled throughout this post keeping 203 separate from 230). The US government brought a civil lawsuit against the defendants for 203 violations. A reminder that if the US government had prosecuted the defendants for violating the Clean Air Act, Sect ..read more

[A reminder that I don’t do April Fools’ pranks.] The court summarizes the allegations: Roblox has a virtual currency designed for use on its platform called “Robux.” Users can buy Robux and exchange them on the platform for in-game experiences. Developers create in-game experiences, and when they make Robux selling those experiences on the platform, Roblox will let them cash out. But, outside the Roblox platform, there are a number of online casinos that take wagers in Robux. Those online casinos entice minors to come gamble away their Robux. To make the Robux available for gambling, an onli ..read more

Haocheng ran several monetized channels on YouTube. He claims that the Chinese Communist Party submitted takedown demands targeting his content, which YouTube ultimately honored. He sued YouTube claiming that the content removals breached YouTube’s contract. YouTube easily wins. The plaintiff claims that YouTube removed his content without providing the promised notice and without adequate cause. However, no such obligations exist per the “clear and unambiguous” agreement terms: The Agreement does not require that YouTube provide users notice before removing content or that YouTube otherwise ..read more

A ..read more