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

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


CAN-SPAM Act may be applicable to Facebook messages
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The CAN-SPAM Act may apply to communications intended to drive users of the Facebook social network to "pages" that redirect the users to an advertiser's external Web site and also encourage them to send additional messages to other users, a district court ruled


No CDA 230 protection for online booksellers for internet sale of book
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

While online booksellers are immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for defamation claims arising out of promotional material supplied by third parties and posted on the booksellers' sites, Section 230 does not extend to defamation claims arising out of the books themselves, a district court ruled


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


Contract right to unilaterally change brokerage fees by web site posting subject to unjust enrichment claim
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

A brokerage agreement that contained a provision permitting the broker to change a customer's brokerage fees by posting on its Web site is subject to an unjust enrichment challenge, a district court ruled


Online provider's selective deletion and retention of third-party business reviews protected by CDA Section 230
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

An online business review site is not liable for alleged defamatory comments posted by a third party user of the site, a New York trial court ruled


Online retailers fail in facial constitutional challenge to New York State Online Sales Tax Law
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

Amendments to New York State's retail sales tax law aimed at requiring online retailers to collect state sales tax on purchases by New York residents is not facially unconstitutional, a New York appellate court ruled


Allegations that web site operator actively contributed to content survive CDA Section 230 motion
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

A complaint alleging that a Web site operator "actively contributes to ... content" on a Web site that contains an allegedly defamatory statement by a third party should not be dismissed pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a district court ruled