We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 109

Assignment of copyright through terms of use: does e-sign make it ok? A tool for B2B sites dealing with unauthorized access to their content?

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 20 2012

It is a common practice for Web site providers who accept submissions of user-generated content to include a license provision in their “Terms of Use” to obtain rights to use the content

In clickwrap data pass contract dispute. Second Circuit sacks e-mail notice of post-transaction terms

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2012

In an important opinion on the enforceability of online contract terms, Senior Circuit Judge Robert D. Sacks walks through the last decade and a half of online contracting law on the way to invalidating an arbitration provision in an agreement involving a so-called Web loyalty program

This is one of the top ten best blog posts ever written about online defamation

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2012

Although we have confidence in the quality of our work, the headline above might be viewed by some as mere hyperbole or rhetorical exaggeration

Michigan court assesses electronic signature authentication under UETA in online insurance transaction

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2012

The acceptance of electronic signatures in commercial transactions has become so commonplace that disputes about their use are relatively few

Who owns an employee's Twitter and other online accounts?

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 8 2011

In this era of multiple online communication channels, and in an environment of increased employee mobility, employers need to focus on the legal and practical ways of securing their ownership of online company accounts that are registered or otherwise created by employees or contractors

Service provider's intent in removing positive reviews irrelevant in assessing availability of CDA Section 230 protection

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 10 2011

A lawsuit against consumer review site Yelp! has yielded an opinion that demonstrates the breadth of the protection afforded interactive service providers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

New York High Court splits on applicability of Communications Decency Act Section 230 to online forum operator

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

A divided New York Court of Appeals ruled on June 14, 2011, that an online forum administrator’s additions to an allegedly defamatory post by a user are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Federal lawsuit alleges infringement of minors' New York right of publicity by Facebook "like" and "friend finder" features

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 19 2011

In what may represent a new wave in an interesting challenge to the viral nature of social media marketing, a recently filed putative class action asserts a right of publicity claim against Facebook in connection with the service's "Like" and "Friend Finder" features

Under Arkansas law, insurance law writing requirement satisfied by online transaction

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 5 2011

A requirement in the Arkansas law that a rejection of medical benefits in an automobile insurance policy be in writing is satisfied by an electronic form completed online, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled

Federal CAN-SPAM Act preempts claim under Illinois anti-spam law that e-mail utilizing tracking technology was misleading

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 5 2011

A claim under the Illinois anti-spam law that the heading on a promotional e-mail was misleading because it failed to warn the recipient that the e-mail sender utilized tracking technology is preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act, a district court ruled