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: 11-20 of 114

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


Under New York long-arm statute, copyright owner's location is situs of copyright harm from online infringement
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

Under N.Y.C.P.L.R. 302(a)(3)(ii), which provides for long-arm jurisdiction in cases involving out-of-state tortious acts that cause harm within the State, where unauthorized copies of copyrighted works are posted on Web sites outside New York, the situs of the resulting injury is the location of the copyright owner


Google Books settlement would usurp congressional role in revising copyright law
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

Judge Chin found that the settlement was not "fair, adequate and reasonable," as required by the federal rules, and suggested that it might be able to be approved if it was changed to an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, settlement


Employer may have violated Lanham Act, state right of publicity, in impersonation of employee on social media
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

An employer that is alleged to have posted messages impersonating an employee on her personal Facebook and Twitter pages while she was recuperating from an accident may be liable under the Lanham Act for false endorsement and under the Illinois right of publicity, a district court ruled


FTC finalizes settlement with Twitter for failure to safeguard consumer personal information
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The charges arose out of lapses in the security of the social networking site's administrative accounts, which enabled hackers to gain access to both administrative and customer accounts


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


Prohibition against web site scraping unenforceable, where terms of use were not readily accessible
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

A Web site operator could not enforce limitations on access set forth in its Terms of Use, where the ToU were not displayed on the site in a way in which a reasonable user could be expected to notice them, a district court ruled


Arbitration provision in subscriber agreement unenforceable where not clearly incorporated into clickwrap services agreement
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

An arbitration provision contained in an online Internet services subscriber agreement is not enforceable where the subscriber agreement was not clearly incorporated into the clickwrap services agreement presented to the subscriber at the time the subscriber installed the provider's software, a district court ruled


Massachusetts statute prohibiting distribution of electronic material deemed harmful to minors likely violates First Amendment
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

A Massachusetts statute prohibiting the distribution by electronic means of material deemed "harmful to minors" likely violates the First Amendment and therefore its enforcement should be preliminarily enjoined, 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