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


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


FTC says 10-day limit on online ad company's cookie opt-out is deceptive, requires five-year effectiveness for opt-out
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The Federal Trade Commission settled charges of deceptive practices with an online advertising company that gave consumers the opportunity to opt out of its tracking cookies, but limited the opt-out period to ten days


FTC consumer privacy settlement over Google Buzz includes EU Safe Harbor violations
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • European Union, USA
  • May 5 2011

The Federal Trade Commission settled deceptive practices charges against Google relating to the rollout of the Google Buzz social network in 2010, including charges that Google violated the substantive requirements of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor agreement


Notice of past infringements on online photo site does not obligate operator to proactively screen site
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

An online photo-sharing site does not have a duty to search its site for material that infringes an artist's works, even if it has received past notices of infringement of the same works from the artist, a district court ruled


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