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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 36

CDA Section 230 protects web site operator from liability for user's defamatory post, despite general statement on web site concerning accuracy of information

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2010

A general statement on a Web site to the effect that posted information was truthful and accurate did not deprive the Web site operators of protection from liability for defamatory statements posted by third parties under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a Texas appeals court ruled

Web site owner's assertion of CDA Section 230 in response to defamation claim not an extortionate threat

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

A Web site operator's assertion of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in response to a demand that allegedly defamatory third-party content be removed from its consumer complaint site does not constitute an extortionate threat under California law, a district court ruled

CDA 230 protects blog owner from liability for third-party comment

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

The court ruled the owner of a blog is not liable for an alleged defamatory comment even if the owner viewed and approved the comment prior to publication on the blog

CDA Section 230 protects online business review site from liability for refusing to remove negative reviews

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

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the provider of an online business review site from liability for refusing to remove negative reviews, a district court ruled

Allegations that employee of Web site operator promised to remove defamatory content preclude summary judgment on promissory estoppel claim

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

Allegations by the plaintiff in a defamation action that a Web site operator's employee said she would "take care" of having false and defamatory profiles removed from the site were sufficient to create an issue of fact precluding summary judgment on the plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim, the district court ruled

Limited damages available under DMCA 512(f) for wrongful takedown notice

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

Although DMCA 512(f) allows an award of "any damages" for wrongful removal of alleged infringing material as a result of misrepresentations to a service provider, such damages "must be proximately caused by the misrepresentation to the service provider and the service provider's reliance on the misrepresentation," a district court ruled

Operator of BitTorrent P2P file-sharing network induced copyright infringement and is ineligible for DMCA safe harbors

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

The operator of a file-sharing network that utilized the BitTorrent file-sharing technology is secondarily liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of the network, a district court ruled

Advertiser protection under CDA Section 230 for user-generated online contest submissions held an issue for jury

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

Material issues of fact concerning an advertiser's role in the creation of user-generated videos submitted in an online contest preclude a grant of summary judgment on the issuer's defense under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a district court ruled

Web site addition of hyperlinks to a previously posted online article does not restart defamation statute of limitations

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

The addition of hyperlinks to an allegedly defamatory online article does not restart the statute of limitations for defamation, a district court ruled

Mobile carriers not secondarily liable for copyright infringement on multimedia messaging system

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

Mobile carriers are not liable for inducing infringement of copyright on their multimedia messaging system because they did not design the system with the object of promoting infringement, nor did they take any specific, affirmative steps to actively encourage or induce infringement by users of the system, a district court ruled in a copyright infringement action brought by a producer of multimedia messaging content