E-Commerce Law

My This Week in Law (Episode 105) Companion #TWiL105

On Friday, I had the pleasure of appearing on This Week in Law with hosts Denise Howell and Evan Brown and fellow guest Iyaz Akhtar.  You can view the podcast below or download it from iTunes.

It was great to be back on the show (I appeared on Episode 78 in September).  Here's a little more information about some of the stories we discussed:

#TWiL105 Live Stream Tomorrow

Tomorrow, I'll be appearing live on Episode 105 of This Week in Law.  The show streams at http://live.twit.tv/ from 2:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. ET and will be produced as a podcast thereafter.

The show is hosted by Denise Howell and Evan Brown.  (I last appeared on This Week in Law in September (Episode 78).)

This week, we'll be discussing some of these topics (as time permits):

• Amazon's Digital Music Locker;
• The RIAA's Demand for "More Money than Exists in the Entire World";
• Replacing Attorneys with Software;
• A Lawsuit that Could (But Definitely Won't) Destroy Facebook;
• IMs Modifying the Terms of a Written Contract; and
• Emerging Social Media Law Issues

I'll be tweeting during the live stream of the show (keep an eye on hashtags #TWiL and #TWiL105), so please make plans to watch and follow me on Twitter (@JonathanFrieden).

 

E-Commerce Law Briefs: Week of March 14, 2011

A federal judge has decided that the Government is entitled to obtain the Twitter account data of certain Wikileaks associates.

The woman mistaken for Spitzer prostitute in Girls Gone Wild video was awarded $3 million.

Professor Goldman believes that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act improves marketplace efficiency.

In an opinion issued last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois refused to dismiss a lawsuit by a director of marketing at an interior design firm who said she was impersonated by her boss on Twitter.

Each weekend, E-Commerce Law Briefs provides a brief summary and commentary on recent legal news affecting e-commerce businesses.

"No Meat" in Quiznos' Motion for Summary Judgment

On February 19, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Quiznos’ motion for summary judgment on Subway’s suit for false and deceptive advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, along with state law claims for commercial disparagement and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. QIP Holders, LLC., 2010 WL 669870 (D. Conn.). The case arises out of Quiznos’ advertising campaign to introduce their “double meat” line of sandwiches. The advertising campaign involved an internet-based contest and two national television commercials that compared certain “double meat” Quiznos sandwiches to certain Subway sandwiches.  Quiznos claimed that its new line of sandwiches had “two times the meat” of comparable Subway sandwiches.

Eastern District of Missouri Applies Section 230 in Dismissing Civil Conspiracy Claim

In Cornelius v. Deluca, 2009 WL 2568044 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 barred the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim.  Plaintiffs, who manufacture nutraceuticals, filed a state court lawsuit against a number of defendants, including the operator of the www.bodybuilding.com website (the "Website"), which arose from the posting of allegedly libelous statements about the plaintiffs and their products on the Website.

Plaintiffs Who Sued GoDaddy, Twitter, and Wordpress for Defamatory Content Written by Third Party Are About to Get Section 230 Lesson

On July 29, 2009, three plaintiffs filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York against a number of individual defendants (both known and unknown), website hosting company GoDaddy.com, micro-blogging site Twitter.com, and blog tool and publishing platform Wordpress.com.  The suit alleges that the individual defendants published defamatory statements about the plaintiffs (alleging their involvement in criminal conduct and corruption) on websites hosted by GoDaddy and Wordpress.  The same statements were also allegedly published via Twitter.

Late last year, I had the opportunity to carefully review all of the civil cases interpreting the limitations of the immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The simple rule emerging from those cases is clear: If the “essential published content” is willingly provided by a third-party, the interactive computer service provider publishing that content enjoys the full immunity afforded by Section 230. (See FAQ:  What is Section 230? & Craigslist Sues South Carolina Attorney General to Avoid Criminal Charges Against the Site and its Executives).  The broad immunity afforded by Section 230 should result in a quick dismissal of the claims against GoDaddy, Twitter, and Wordpress.

Don't forget to have free updates of E-Commerce Law content sent to you by email or RSS.

Courts Continue to Confine the Roommates Decision to the Specific Facts of that Case

When the Ninth Circuit decided Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), we opined that the opinion wasn't "all that earth-shattering. It’s crafted to be narrowly applicable to the particular case decided and should not alter the Section 230 analysis in most future cases."  Now, more than a year later, about half a dozen federal courts have espoused the same view.

E-Commerce Law Briefs: Week of May 25, 2009

Popular social networking site Facebook has settled a dispute over whether it actually owns the FACEBOOK trademark.  Think Computer "has agreed to abandon its efforts to get the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the trademark issued to Facebook in 2006."

A Facebook user has agreed to drop his $70.50 lawsuit alleging that the site failed to act reasonably to protect users from viruses.  Section 230 probably barred the suit anyway.

Each weekend, E-Commerce Law Briefs provides a brief summary and commentary on recent legal news affecting e-commerce businesses.

Craigslist Sues South Carolina Attorney General to Avoid Criminal Charges Against the Site and its Executives

A couple of weeks ago, we mentioned that the Attorney General of South Carolina was threatening to file criminal charges against the chief executive officer of Craigslist unless the site removed all sex related postings from its South Carolina sites.  Apparently, the threats continued, even after Craigslist announced that it would be eliminating its ads for "erotic services." 

Following the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, Craigslist has now filed suit against the South Carolina Attorney General, seeking declaratory relief and a restraining order prohibiting the filing of criminal charges against Craigslist or its executives.  In the Craigslist blog post announcing the move, the company said that the threatened charges were "unwarranted by the facts . . . and represent an unconstitutional prior restraint of free speech."  The company also indicated that such charges would be barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

FAQ: What is Section 230?

In the e-commerce or Internet law context, "Section 230" refers to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal law which has significantly altered the traditional legal principles applied to defamation actions and others claims based upon content published on the Internet.