The Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) provides broad immunity for “providers of interactive computer services.” In essence, if an internet service provider falls within certain parameters, it is entitled to immunity against certain claims of liability brought under state law. Last month, the Ninth Circuit again considered the breadth of such immunity in the case, Kimzey
When fashion fuses with high tech, we see our friends show up with trendy wearables, such as smart watches, fitness bands, and even high-tech, designer purses. But, trendiness aside, wearables raise numerous questions for designers, manufacturers and consumers relating to intellectual property, data privacy and data security. For example, how does a company protect the…
6/25/16- At the 7th Annual VidCon in Anaheim, CA , Weintraub Tobin Shareholder Scott M. Hervey and Rian Bosak, Head of Network Operations Full Screen, presented “Fair Use and Youtube- A Creator’s Take” to a standing room only audience of digital media creators and industry professionals. Check out their presentation below:
One of the primary purposes of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) is to limit liability for certain internet content providers specifically protecting websites from liability for material posting on their website by a third party. In Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., the operator of a networking site in the modeling industry sought to use the CDA as a defense to a negligence claim based on a failure to warn. The facts of the case are horrific.
Jane Doe was an aspiring actress who posted her information on the networking site Modelmayhem.com. In February 2011, she was contacted by two men Lavont Flanders and Emerson Callum, about a modeling audition in Florida. Jane Doe traveled to Florida to meet with the two men and was given a drug that caused her to pass out after which she was raped and the assault made into a pornographic film. (Flanders and Mr. Callum were convicted of numerous crimes by a federal jury in Florida and sentenced to life in prison for this and other similar assaults.)
Jane Doe claimed that the owner of the Modelmayhem.com website, Internet Brands, Inc. knew of the two men’s unlawful conduct but took no steps to warn her or other users of the threat. Prior to the 2011 assault, Internet Brand, which had purchased the Modelmayhem site in 2008, had apparently sued the seller of the site in 2010 for failing to disclose the potential civil liability arising from the criminal deeds of Callum and Flanders. She brought a claim against Internet Brands, Inc. for negligence under California law which recognizes a cause of action for failure to warn. Internet Brands moved to dismiss the claim asserting that the CDA immunized it from liability as to Jane Doe’s claims. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint. Jane Doe appealed to the Ninth Circuit which reversed the trial court’s decision in an opinion dated September 17, 2014.
By: Dale Campbell & Brittany Shugart
The Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) has proposed numerous rule revisions, several of which are designed to address discovery problems related to electronically-stored information (“ESI”). ESI discovery has become extremely complex and expensive as technology continues to expand into numerous and varying communication devices and data storage. ESI is located not only on the client’s main computer servers but also on each employee’s desktop, smart phone, and tablet device.
The complications of ESI discovery have led to what this writer considers to be a disturbing trend in commercial litigation. Litigation is frequently no longer focused on the facts of the case but, instead, on burdensome discovery fights frequently related to ESI, where one side or the other hopes to win the suit by trapping their opponents in an expensive discovery quagmire, unintentional deletion of historical ESI, or a simple good faith oversight in producing ESI.