Cyberspace Law

Subscribe to Cyberspace Law via RSS

By: Nathan Geronimo

A few months ago I wrote about the dangers of posting information online that contradicted your own contentions when involved in litigation.  I cited to cases where posts on social networking sites were used as evidence against plaintiffs in civil cases.  A recent case involving blogs and social networking sites illustrates yet another legal issue associated with internet posts in the modern times: Posts affecting a third party’s privacy, and the possibility that such posts can be considered harassment.

Johnson v. Arlotta is a classic “jilted lover” story with a modern twist.  Andrew Arlotta and Ann Marie Johnson had a romantic relationship for just under a year.  After this relationship terminated, Arlotta continued to contact Johnson, who did not welcome Arlotta’s communications.  In late December 2009, Johnson obtained a six-month harassment restraining order against Arlotta, which prohibited Arlotta from committing any acts intended to adversely affect Johnson’s safety or privacy, and from having any contact with Johnson by email or by other means or persons.Continue Reading Don’t Blog on Me

By Zachary Wadlé

In my last column of 2011 I wrote about the proposed “Stop Online Piracy Act” (“SOPA”) introduced in the United States Congress to provide the government with enhanced, but highly controversial, tools to fight online copyright infringement. As I noted, SOPA “spawned a fierce public relations and lobbying battle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood that will play out in the media and in the halls of Congress in the months to come.” Despite the spotty record of my predictive powers, these words turned out to be prescient. The debate over SOPA has blown up in recent weeks, culminating with Wikipedia’s (and many other well-known internet sites) decision to black out their website on January 19, 2012. Google got in on the act too by “censoring” the Google logo on its homepage, (but still allowing use of its search engine and all other Google web services).

The online blackout led by Wikipedia had an immediate effect. The next day, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, postponed critical votes on SOPA (and its companion Senate Bill – the “Protect Intellectual Property Act” or “PIPA”). Rumors swirled that Reid did not have the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to move the legislation past a key procedural hurdle, and Smith said, “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy.” For now, the legislation is tabled for further negotiation and re-drafting in light of the substantial criticism from internet heavyweights.Continue Reading ONLINE PIRACY WAR HEATS UP

By Nathan Geronimo

People are better connected with friends and family than ever before.  Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be an excellent way to stay in touch with loved ones, and to get daily updates of people’s lives.  Similarly, through sites such as YouTube, people are able to share videos and information with others almost instantaneously.  While these sites can be great to disseminate images and information to a desired audience, they can also make information readily available to audiences that are less desirable to, and not contemplated by the poster.  There has been a great deal of buzz in recent years about employers using social media sites to perform “background checks” on prospective employees, and warning job applicants to be conscious of this fact when posting on social media sites.  In addition to this concern, recent cases illustrate a possible new concern for social media posters: use of social media posts in litigation.

In a recent decision in Louisiana, Boudwin v. General Ins. Co., Plaintiffs sued an individual and an insurance company based on alleged injuries arising out of a car accident.  In the lower Court, Plaintiff’s prevailed on the question of liability, but were unsatisfied with the jury awards of $25, 000 to the first Plaintiff, and $50,000 to the second Plaintiff.  On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the jury erred in failing to award them any damages for physical disability or loss of enjoyment of life.  To recover based on a theory of detrimental lifestyle change, a court looks at both the severity of the injury, and Plaintiff’s lifestyle prior to the injury.Continue Reading Involved in Litigation? Be Careful What You Post Online

By Zachary Wadlé

On Oct. 26, 2011, the Stop Online Piracy Act “SOPA” (H.R. 3261) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives. One of SOPA’s primary goals is to address the continuing problem of online digital piracy of counterfeit movie, music, and other copyrightable works engaged in through foreign websites. 

The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Copyright Act of 1976 are the primary existing U.S. laws that address copyright infringement, but both have limited ability to address foreign based websites that engage in digital piracy. SOPA attacks this problem by giving both government officials and copyright owners new powers to target foreign websites and infringers through the search engines, web hosts, and payment system providers that allow foreign websites to reach the U.S. market. Continue Reading Hollywood and Silicon Valley Spar Over Proposed “Stop Online Piracy Act”

By James Kachmar

Although courts routinely grant permanent injunctions to curtail deceptive marketing practices, they sometimes struggle with whether an injunction impermissibly violates a party’s rights under the First Amendment. In TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. EDriver Inc., the Ninth Circuit struck down one such injunction finding that it was overbroad and violated the defendants’ First Amendment Constitutional rights to free speech.

In TrafficSchool.com, the defendants owned and managed several for-profit websites, including DMV.org, whose mission was to save their customer “time, money and even a trip to the DMV.” People could visit the defendants’ website “for help renewing drivers’ licenses, buying car insurance, viewing driving records, beating traffic tickets, registering vehicles and even finding DUI/DWI attorneys.” The defendants generated revenue from the DMV.org website based on the number of visitors it attracted. Given the website name DMV.org, as well as its layouts, many visitors confused the website with the one that was run by California’s actual Department of Motor Vehicles. In addition to consumers, law enforcement officials and DMV employees from other states also confused DMV.org with the real California DMV website. Continue Reading The First Amendment and Anti-Trust False Advertising Injunctions