Plaintiff is an artist who designs macabre items, including a bat-themed mug. Defendant (Michaels, the well-known retail craft store) started selling a vase that plaintiff claimed infringed its bat mug copyright. So he sued for copyright infringement. Michaels moved to dismiss, arguing there was no substantial similarity between the works. And even if there were substantial similarity, according to Michaels, plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged that Michaels actually copied the work. The court rejected Michaels’ arguments and denied the motion to dismiss.
Actual copying can be shown by indirect evidence. To adequately plead indirect evidence of actual copying, one must allege, among other things, that the accused infringer could reasonably access the plaintiff’s copyrighted work.
In this case, the artist alleged facts sufficient to establish that Michaels could reasonably access the vampire bat mug. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that it advertised its products, including the vampire bat mug, on various social media platforms, such as Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, and Tumblr. Through these social media accounts, plaintiff had allegedly reached at least 30,000 followers. In addition to its social media presence, plaintiff alleged it advertised the mug on the internet more generally, and sold it through online retailers, including Etsy, eBay, and Amazon. The court credited plaintiff’s allegations that plaintiff’s reach over the internet extended to customers all over the world, in particular customers in China, where designers and advertisers purportedly saw the mug. These allegations were sufficient to show that defendant could have reasonably accessed plaintiff’s work.
After plaintiff Uber user was denied a ride because of her guide dog, she sued Uber for discrimination under Maine law. Uber sought to have the matter sent to arbitration and the court denied that motion. So Uber sought appeal with the Maine supreme court. That court affirmed the denial of the arbitration motion, finding that Uber’s terms of service were not binding on plaintiff.
First, plaintiff was not placed on reasonable notice that the terms existed. The hyperlink was not underlined and was muted by gray coloring. Its placement on the screen was “relatively inconspicuous.” There was a greater focus on entering payment information.
Second, the court found that even if the registration process had provided reasonable notice that the terms existed, the process was insufficient to place plaintiff on notice that her registration would constitute her assent to those terms. Merely clicking the “DONE” button in the signup process, in the court’s view, could merely have meant that plaintiff thought she was done entering her information, not signing up for an account. And that button appeared on the screen “as far as possible” from the notice and hyperlink to the terms, which were at the bottom of the screen.
One could characterize the recent case of Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Schiff as addressing the issue of vaccine information censorship. The court considered whether letters written by Congressman Adam Schiff to Big Tech platforms, and statements he made in a Congressional hearing, caused the companies to deplatform a medical trade association and otherwise disfavor its content in search results.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) publishes online content that it characterizes not as “anti-vaccine,” but rather in favor of “informed consent based on disclosure of all relevant legal, medical, and economic information.” In 2019, California Representative Adam Schiff wrote letters to Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter, complaining about what he characterized as inaccurate information on vaccines, and requested answers to questions about what these platforms were doing to combat vaccine misinformation. In a later congressional hearing, he questioned whether Section 230 immunity for these sorts of technology platforms should be changed (a statement that AAPS characterized as a threat to these Big Tech platforms).
Thereafter, Amazon kicked AAPS out of its associates program, and AAPS’s web traffic to its vaccine information pages dropped (which it blames on Google and Facebook disfavoring the content). AAPS sued Schiff, seeking damages, claiming that his statements and actions caused these platforms to treat it disfavorably. The trial court dismissed the case on a motion to dismiss, finding that AAPS lacked standing. AAPS sought review with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of standing. The court affirmed the dismissal primarily for two reasons. First, if found that AAPS had not sufficiently alleged that it suffered any injury in the form of an impairment of its ability to negotiate with Amazon. Secondly, the court found that any injury AAPS suffered from it being deplatformed and its content disfavored, as alleged by AAPS, was not sufficiently traceable to Schiff’s conduct.
Schiff had also argued that he could not be sued (i.e., that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction) because his actions giving rise to the lawsuit were legislative acts and therefore protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. Because AAPS had not established that it had standing, the court did not need not reach the separate jurisdictional issue of immunity under this constitutional clause.
Stained glass window at Pokagon State Park in Angola, Indiana, near where the underlying events in this case took place.
In 2019, Indiana joined a number of other states and enacted a statute that makes it a crime for a person to distribute an “intimate image” when he or she knows or reasonably should know that an individual depicted in the image does not consent to the distribution. In March 2020, defendant sent a video of himself receiving oral sex to his ex-girlfriend via Snapchat. After being charged under the statute, defendant moved to dismiss, arguing in part that the statute violates both the Indiana and U.S. constitutions. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. But the state appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
What part of the Indiana constitution applied?
The court’s analysis under the Indiana constitution is particularly interesting. Indiana’s constitutional protection in this area reads quite a bit differently than the language of the First Amendment.
Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana constitution reads as follows:
No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.
The court first had to evaluate whether videos – and in particular the video at issue – were covered by the applicable Indiana constitutional provision. “Our encounters with Article 1, Section 9 have always involved words, thus invoking the ‘right to speak’ clause.” The court held that the video content was protected under the “free interchange” clause of the state’s constitution. “We understand the free interchange clause to encompass the communication of any thought or opinion, on any topic, through ‘every conceivable mode of expression.’” And the court quickly ascertained that being prosecuted for the distribution of the video was a “direct and substantial burden” on defendant’s right to self-expression.
Abuse of rights?
But defendant’s expressive activity in this case – though within his right to free interchange as expressed in the constitution – was an abuse of that right. Looking through the lens of the natural rights philosophy that informed the drafting of the Indiana constitution, the court cited to previous authority (Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. 1996)) that explained how “individuals possess ‘inalienable’ freedom to do as they will, but they have collectively delegated to government a quantum of that freedom in order to advance everyone’s ‘peace, safety, and well-being.'” Thus, the court observed that the purpose of state power is “to foster an atmosphere in which individuals can fully enjoy that measure of freedom they have not delegated to government.”
Citing to State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439 (Ind. 1896), the court evaluated how “[t]he State may exercise its police power to promote the health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the public.” And citing to other authority, the court noted that “courts defer to legislative decisions about when to exercise the police power and typically require only that they be rational.” So the question became whether – approached from the standpoint of rationality – the statute’s restriction on the right to self-expression was appropriate to promote the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the public.
Rationality favored public protection
“Under our rationality inquiry, we have no trouble concluding the impingement created by the statute is vastly outweighed by the public health, welfare, and safety served.” In reaching this conclusion, the court examined, among other things, the tremendous harms of revenge porn – including its connection to domestic violence and psychological injury. Accordingly, the court found the statute did not violate the Indiana constitution.
The court also found that the statute did not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It held that the statute is content-based and therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Even under this standard, the court found that it served a compelling government interest, and was narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest.
State v. Katz, 2022 WL 152487 (Ind., January 18, 2022)
The parties in the case of H.I.S.C., Inc. v. Franmar are competitors, each making garden broom products. In earlier litigation, the defendant filed a counterclaim against plaintiff for trade dress infringement, and successfully obtained an injunction against plaintiff, prohibiting plaintiff from advertising brooms designed in a certain way. Defendant asked the court to find plaintiff in contempt for, among other reasons, certain social media posts that plaintiff posted before the injunction, but that still remained after the injunction was entered. The court agreed that the continuing existence of such posts was improper and found plaintiff in contempt for having violated the injunction.
The court noted that the injunction prohibited “[a]dvertising, soliciting, marketing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise using in the United States the [applicable product trade dress] in connection with any garden broom products.” It observed that “[o]n the Internet and in social media, a post from days, weeks, months, or even years ago can still serve to advertise a product today.” The court cited to Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp., 985 F.3d 1107, 1116 n.5, in which that court noted that one prominent influencer receives $300,000 to $500,000 for a single Instagram post endorsing a company’s product – a sum surely including both the post itself and an agreement to continue allowing the post to be visible to consumers for a substantial duration of time. Interestingly, the court found that the nature of a social media post may be different from a television or radio advertisement that has a fixed air date and time. Accordingly, the court found that it was inappropriate for social media posts published before the injunction to stay online.
H.I.S.C., Inc. v. Franmar Int’l Importers, Ltd., 2022 WL 104730 (S.D. Cal. January 11, 2022)
The Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2701 et seq.) is among the most powerful tools relating to email privacy. It is a federal statute that prohibits, in certain circumstances, one from intentionally accessing without authorization, or exceeding authorized access to, a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided. The statute provides criminal penalties and an aggrieved party can bring a civil suit for damages in certain cases.
The statute contains a provision that addresses the amount of money damages a successful plaintiff can recover. Section 2707(c) provides the following:
Damages. The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.
Note the phrase “but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.” Does that mean every plaintiff that successfully proves the defendant’s liability is entitled to at least $1,000, regardless of whether there was any actual damage that occurred? The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed that question in the case of Domain Protection, L.L.C. v. Sea Wasp, L.L.C. It held that one must show at least some actual damages before being entitled to the minimum of $1,000.
The court looked to the Supreme Court’s approach in addressing nearly identical language in another statute, wherein SCOTUS concluded that “person entitled to recover” refers back to the party that suffers “actual damages.” Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 620, 124 S.Ct. 1204, 157 L.Ed.2d 1122 (2004). And it noted that two other circuits have held that this reasoning should apply to the same terms in the Stored Communications Act: Vista Mktg., LLC v. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954, 964–75 (11th Cir. 2016) and Van Alstyne v. Elec. Scriptorium, Ltd., 560 F.3d 199, 204–208 (4th Cir. 2009). The court “endorse[d] the reasoning of those opinions and [saw] no need to repeat it.”
Omegle is a notorious website where you can be randomly placed in a chat room (using video, audio and text) with strangers on the internet. Back in March 2020, 11-year-old C.H. was using Omegle and got paired with a pedophile who intimidated her into disrobing on camera while he captured video. When C.H.’s parents found out, they sued Omegle alleging a number of theories:
possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A;
violation of the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595;
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710;
intrusion upon seclusion;
negligence;
intentional infliction of emotional distress;
ratification/vicarious liability; and
public nuisance
The court granted Omegle’s motion to dismiss all eight claims, holding that each of the claims was barred by the immunity provided under 47 U.S.C. § 230. Citing to Doe v. Reddit, Inc., 2021 WL 5860904 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) and Roca Labs, Inc. v. Consumer Op. Corp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2015), the court observed that a defendant seeking to enjoy the immunity provided by Section 230 must establish that: (1) defendant is a service provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the causes of action treat defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and (3) a different information content provider provided the information.
Omegle met Section 230’s definition of “interactive computer service”
The court found Omegle to be an interactive computer service provider because there were no factual allegations suggesting that Omegle authored, published or generated its own information to warrant classifying it as an information content provider. Nor were there any factual allegations that Omegle materially contributed to the unlawfulness of the content at issue by developing or augmenting it. Omegle users were not required to provide or verify user information before being placed in a chatroom with another user. And some users, such as hackers and “cappers”, could circumvent other users’ anonymity using the data they themselves collected from those other users.
Plaintiffs’ claims sought to treat Omegle as a publisher or speaker of information
The court found that each of the claims for possession of child pornography, sex trafficking, violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, intrusion upon seclusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress sought redress for damages caused by the unknown pedophile’s conduct. Specifically, in the court’s view, no well-pleaded facts suggested that Omegle had actual knowledge of the sex trafficking venture involving C.H. or that Omegle had an active participation in the venture. As for the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, ratification/vicarious liability and public nuisance, the court similarly concluded that plaintiffs’ theories of liability were rooted in Omegle’s creation and maintenance of the site. The court observed that plaintiffs’ claims recognized the distinction between Omegle as an interactive computer service provider and its users, but nonetheless treated Omegle as the publisher responsible for the conduct at issue. The court found this was corroborated by the “ratification/vicarious liability” claim, in which plaintiffs maintained that child sex trafficking was so pervasive on and known to Omegle that it should have been vicariously liable for the damages caused by such criminal activity. And, in the court’s view, through the negligence and public nuisance claims, plaintiffs alleged that Omegle knew or should have known about the dangers that the platform posed to minor children, and that Omegle failed to ensure that minor children did not fall prey to child predators that may use the website.
The information at issue was provided by a third party
On this third element, the court found that Omegle merely provided the forum where harmful conduct took place. The content giving rise to the harm – the video and the intimidation – were undertaken by the unknown pedophile, not Omegle.
Special note: Section 230 and the sex trafficking claim
Section 230 (e)(5) limits an interactive computer service provider’s immunity in certain circumstances involving claims of sex trafficking. In this case, however, like the court did in the case of Doe v. Kik Interactive, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (S.D. Fla. 2020), the court held that Omegle’s Section 230 immunity remained intact, because the plaintiffs’ allegations were premised upon general, constructive knowledge of past sex trafficking incidents. The complaint failed to sufficiently allege Omegle’s actual knowledge or overt participation in the underlying incidents between C.H. and the unknown pedophile.
Federal law has a statute that prohibits abusive domain name registration. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d) (ACPA) provides, among other things, that one is prohibited from registering, trafficking in or using, with a bad faith intent to profit, a domain name that is confusingly similar to another’s trademark that was distinctive when the domain name was registered.
In the recent case of Instructure, Inc. v. Canvas Technologies, the court considered whether the ACPA requires the mark to have been distinctive when the domain name was first registered, or whether it can still be protected by being distinctive when the domain name was re-registered. It held that the statute applies to distinctiveness at re-registration.
In this case, the disputed domain name was first registered in 1997, several years before plaintiff obtained trademark rights in its CANVAS mark. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s cybersquatting claim, arguing that the plaintiff did not have rights to a distinctive mark when the domain name was first registered, and that therefore the statute’s requirement was not met. Plaintiff showed, however, that the ownership of the domain name changed sometime in 2021 (i.e., it was re-registered).
Looking to the statute’s plain language, Congressional intent, public policy, and the trending weight of authority in other federal circuits, the court held that re-registration, or “registration again” is contemplated under the ACPA’s language. It denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the ACPA claim.
In a recent case under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the administrative panel determined that a party who had owned the disputed domain name for more than 20 years was not entitled to recover it from another party who bought the domain name at auction. The complainant alleged that it let the domain name registration lapse because it could not communicate with the domain name registrar, which apparently recently had been acquired by another registrar. After purchasing the domain name at auction, the respondent redirected it to his travel-related website. (The parties disputed whether that redirection continued – in a supplemental filing, the complainant characterized the respondent’s redirecting of the disputed domain name to pay-per-click ads as “thumbing his nose” at the tribunal and the complainant.
The panel found the use of the generic words “simple” and “plan” in the domain name, in relation to a travel-related website operating in the way described by the respondent, was legitimate. The panel therefore found that, before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent had used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of travel-related services.
As for the question of the respondent’s registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, the panel found there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent had any hand in preventing the complainant’s renewal of the domain name or that he should have known of the complainant’s mark at the time when he purchased the domain name at auction. Further, the complainant did not submit any evidence of its reputation in the countries where the respondent lives or conducts business. Thus, the panel concluded that the complainant had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the was targeting the complainant’s mark.
Plaintiff manufacturer of medical equipment sued a company that services such equipment for hospitals and clinics. Plaintiff claimed, among other things, that defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by using fake accounts to access proprietary documents, information and software that plaintiff had protected with digital rights management (DRM) technology.
The court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction – which sought to bar defendant from accessing the computer systems or circumventing the DRM. It held that plaintiff had not met an essential element required for injunctive relief, namely, that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.
There were two main reasons for the court’s decision. First, the court found that the assertions of irreparable harm were mere conclusions not supported by concrete facts. Second, the court found that the obligations on the defendant imposed by the contracts it had with its hospital and clinic customers would constrain defendant from engaging in the harmful activity that plaintiff sought to stop. For example, plaintiff claimed that defendant would access patient data without authorization. But the court noted that defendant was bound by confidentiality agreements and the obligation to abide by applicable data protection law. And plaintiff was worried that continued unauthorized access would increase the chances that defendant would modify the equipment. But again, the court looked to the contracts between defendant and its customers, which obligated defendant to properly maintain the equipment (thus removing any incentive to do what plaintiff was seeking to prevent).
Philips North America LLC v. Advanced Imaging Services, Inc., 2021 WL 6052285 (E.D. Cal., December 21, 2021)
