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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 112

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


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


Addition of introduction and forwarding of defamatory e-mail protected from liability under CDA Section 230
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

The recipient of a defamatory e-mail who forwarded it to other parties with a brief introduction is protected from liability for defamation by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a panel of the California Court of Appeal ruled


No DMCA or trademark liability for provider of online printing services for removal of material deemed infringing
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

An online printing services provider is not liable for removal of user content that it deems infringing or otherwise objectionable, a district court ruled


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


Early termination fee in contract for internet access not an invalid liquidated damages clause under California law
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

An early termination fee contained in a contract for Internet access services for a defined period is not an invalid liquidated damages clause under Cal. Civ. Code Section 1671, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled


Sender's liquidated damages liability under California anti-spam statute limited to $1 million per incident
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

The liquidated damages provision of the California anti-spam statute, which caps liquidated damages at $1 million "per incident," is a limitation on a sender's liability for each transmission of an actionable message to a single recipient or to multiple recipients, a district court held


FINRA alerts investors to bitcoin risks
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • March 14 2014

Bitcoin remains fixed on the front pages of the business and technology news for both the salacious and the positive. Much attention has been paid to


Advertiser settles deceptive advertising charges stemming from undisclosed payments for online reviews
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

An advertiser that paid affiliates to post favorable reviews of its product in online articles, blog posts and other online editorial material without disclosing the arrangement agreed to pay a $250,000 fine to settle deceptive advertising charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission