Attorney Evan Brown

October 1, 2019 Contracts, Litigation

Court will not aid company that was banned from accessing Facebook API

Facebook’s ability to decisively police the integrity of its platforms was without question a pressing public interest.

Plaintiffs provided software-as-a-service to help their clients locate social media content, gain approval to use that content, and then re-purpose it in the clients’ own advertising and marketing activities.

Previously, plaintiffs had operated in partnership with Facebook, whereby plaintiffs had access to the Facebook Open Graph API. In late August 2019 (a few weeks after a Business Insider article identified plaintiffs as misusing the Instagram platform) Facebook terminated the marketing partnership and access to the API.

After efforts to informally resolve the situation failed, plaintiffs, perhaps emboldened by the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in hiQ v. LinkedIn, sued Facebook and Instagram asserting a number of claims, including breach of contract and tortious interference, and also sought a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order that would have restored access to the platforms pending the case’s determination on the merits. But the court denied the motion.

No irreparable harm likely

The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that they would suffer irreparable harm if access was not restored. It found that plaintiffs’ allegations of imminent harms shared a common fatal flaw in that they merely alleged speculative harm – they did not sufficiently demonstrate that irreparable harm was likely to occur.

Plaintiffs did establish for purposes of this motion that much (though not all) of the work they conducted for clients before losing API access involved Facebook. But the court found that plaintiffs had not sufficiently shown that they would actually lose current customers, or fail to acquire new prospective customers, if access were not restored.

Further, the court found that plaintiffs’ CEO’s statement that “this will soon reach a tipping point where [plaintiffs] can no longer operate” was not specific enough to demonstrate there was irreparable harm. “The extraordinary relief of a pre-adjudicatory injunction demands more precision with respect to when irreparable harm will occur than ‘soon.’ Such vague statements are insufficient evidence to show a threat of extinction.”

Not in the public’s interest

The court also found that the “public’s interest caution[ed] against issuing injunctive relief at this time.”

Plaintiffs argued that the public interest favored an injunction because one would prevent the imminent destruction of plaintiffs’ business, preserve employee jobs, and generally allow plaintiffs to continue operating. Additionally, they argued that the public interest would be served by enjoining defendants’ wrongful conduct.

Defendants argued that the public had an interest in allowing Facebook to exclude those who act impermissibly on its platform and jeopardize user privacy by, in this instance, automating data collection and scraping content en masse. Defendants argued that the public has an interest in allowing them latitude to enforce rules preventing abuse of their platforms.

The court decided that awarding injunctive relief at this stage would compel Facebook to permit a suspected abuser of its platform and its users’ privacy to continue to access its platform and users’ data for weeks longer, until a preliminary injunction motion could be resolved. Moreover, as precedent within Facebook’s policy-setting organization and potentially with other courts, issuing an injunction at this stage could handicap Facebook’s ability to decisively police its social-media platforms in the first instance. Facebook’s enforcement activities would be compromised if judicial review were expected to precede rather than follow its enforcement actions.

And although the public certainly has some interest in avoiding the dissolution of companies and the accompanying loss of employment, the court found that Facebook’s ability to decisively police the integrity of its platforms was without question a pressing public interest. In particular, the court noted, the public has a strong interest in the integrity of Facebook’s platforms, policing of those platforms for abuses, and protection of users’ privacy.

Stackla, Inc. v. Facebook Inc., No. 19-5849, 2019 WL 4738288 (N.D. Cal., September 27, 2019)

September 30, 2019 Anonymity, Electronic Discovery, Litigation

Plaintiff failed to make key arguments in bid to unmask anonymous online defendants

Plaintiff sued some unknown defendants for breach of contract and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, based on the defendants’ deceptive conduct that tricked some internet users into signing up for plaintiff’s paid services. The unknown defendants would receive affiliate commissions from operating this scheme. This caused reputation problems for plaintiff.

Plaintiff sought early discovery to ascertain the identities of the unknown defendants. The court denied the motion.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party to seek discovery from the adverse parties in the case until all parties have conducted an initial conference under Rule 26(f). But when the defendants are unknown, that conference cannot take place. So the plaintiff needs to conduct discovery to find out who they are. In situations like these, for the required early discovery to occur and the unknown defendants to be identified (so that the conference can take place), the court must enter an order permitting early discovery.

A court can authorize early discovery to identify unknown defendants if there is good cause. In determining whether there is good cause, courts consider whether the plaintiff:

can identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court;
has identified all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant;
has articulated claims against defendant that would withstand a motion to dismiss; and
has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of being able to identify the defendant through discovery such that service of process would be possible.

In this case, the court found that plaintiff failed to identify the defendants with sufficient specificity, and did not demonstrate that each defendant was a real person or entity who would be subject to jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff had not explained why defendants would be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, as defendants’ activities seemed directed at Argentina, and plaintiff’s harm was felt in Argentina and other parts of Latin America. The only apparent connection defendants had with the Northern District of California was that they used domain name services from California companies. Plaintiff provided no authority to suggest this was sufficient to create jurisdiction.

Plaintiff also failed to explain what steps it had taken to locate defendants. Citing to Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999), the court noted that “[t]his element is aimed at ensuring that plaintiffs make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of service of process and specifically identifying defendants.”

In its motion, plaintiff only stated that there were no more practical measures that would permit it to identify the unknown defendants, but did not identify what measures – if any – were taken. For example, plaintiff was apparently able to identify defendants as affiliates, and that a contract existed, giving rise to legal liability. It was therefore not clear why plaintiff was unable to identify defendants based on the contract.

Binbit Argentina, S.A. v. Does 1-25, No. 19-5384, 2019 WL 4645159 (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2019)

Web design feature killed express license argument in copyright case

Plaintiff sued defendant for copyright infringement over unlicensed use of plaintiff’s musical works in advertisements that defendant created and uploaded to YouTube. Defendant argued that the language and structure of plaintiff’s website – from which the works were downloaded – resulted in an express license or at least an implied license to use the musical works for commercial purposes. The court rejected these arguments and awarded summary judgment to plaintiff.

No express license

The basis for defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s website gave rise to an express license is not clear. In any event, plaintiff argued that a browsewrap agreement in place on the website established that the works could not be used for commercial purposes without the payment of a license fee. Citing to the well-known browsewrap case of Specht v. Netscape, 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002), defendant argued that it did not have notice of the terms and conditions of the browsewrap agreement.

The court distinguished this case from Specht. In this case, plaintiff’s home page contained – similar to the case of Major v. McCallister, 302 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) – “immediately visible” hyperlinks that referenced terms of use and licensing information. A user did not have to scroll to find these links. So the terms and conditions of the browsewrap agreement were enforceable. Since the browsewrap agreement contained provisions requiring a license for commercial use, no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff had granted defendant an express license to use the musical works for commercial purposes free of charge.

No implied license

Defendant argued in the alternative that plaintiff had granted defendant an implied license to use the musical works, based on (1) plaintiff’s company name “Freeplay,” and (2) the absence of any conspicuous warning that the works were not available for commercial use.

The court found these arguments to be “easily disposed of.” Citing to I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1996), the court noted that an implied license exists only when:

a person (the licensee) requests the creation of a work,
the creator (the licensor) makes that particular work and delivers it to the licensee who requested it, and
the licensor intends that the licensee-requestor copy and distribute his work.

The court found that defendant failed to prove any of these elements. Defendant never asked plaintiff to create any works. Nor did plaintiff make any works at defendant’s request to be used in defendant’s YouTube videos. Moreover, given plaintiff’s paid license requirements for business use of the copyrighted works available on its website, it could not be said that plaintiff intended that defendant download and distribute those works free of charge. Accordingly, the court found that no implied license existed.

Freeplay Music, LLC v. Dave Arbogast Buick-GMC, Inc., No. 17-42, 2019 WL 4647305 (S.D. Ohio, September 24, 2019)

About the Author: Evan Brown is a Chicago technology and intellectual property attorney. Call Evan at (630) 362-7237, send email to ebrown [at] internetcases.com, or follow him on Twitter @internetcases. Read Evan’s other blog, UDRP Tracker, for information about domain name disputes.

July 23, 2019 Copyright

Plaintiff had no duty to “scour” the internet for infringements – statute of limitations did not bar copyright claim made 7 years after infringement

Plaintiff freelance photojournalist sued defendant website publisher for copyright infringement over photos plaintiff took of a luxury maximum security prison in Norway in 2010. Defendants posted the photos on its website in 2011 without permission, in connection with a widely-publicized story of a notorious mass shooter being relocated there. Plaintiff registered the copyright in his photos in 2015 and filed suit in 2018, claiming that he did not learn of the alleged infringement until 2016.

Each party filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff claimed that the court should enter summary judgment in his favor because he had a valid copyright to the photographs, and there was no dispute that defendant published several of them without authorization. Defendant asserted that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations, because he knew, or should have known, of the infringement when interest in the photos spiked following the remand of the alleged mass murderer to the prison where the photos were taken.

Photos included in copyright registration

The court found there was no genuine issue as to any material fact concerning plaintiff’s ownership of the copyright in the photos. And defendant conceded it published the photos without authorization. Defendant had challenged whether plaintiff’s copyright registration covered the photos at issue. Plaintiff had not introduced the deposit materials, but had submitted a sworn statement saying the photos had been included in the registration. The court found the sworn statement to carry the issue – had the defendant filed a motion to compel or sought the deposit materials from the copyright office, it may have been able to show the photos were not included. But on these facts, it was clear to the court that the copyright registration covered the photos.

Statute of limitations – no duty to scour

The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the copyright infringement claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. Civil actions for copyright infringement must be “commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The Second Circuit has stated that the “discovery rule” governs when the statute of limitations begins to run: an infringement claim does not ‘accrue’ until the copyright holder discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the infringement.

The court found that plaintiff’s knowledge about general interest in the prison following the news stories about the mass shooter being relocated there was not sufficient to constitute constructive discovery that his photographs of that prison were being infringed. Plaintiff did not have knowledge of any infringement of his work and there was no reason for him to think, or duty for him to scour the internet to find out if, anyone was using his photographs without his consent. The court cited Wu v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2015 WL 5254885 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2015) to observe that “[i]f that were the expectation, then stock photo agencies and photographers likely would spend more money monitoring their licenses than they receive from issuing licenses.”

Masi v. Moguldom Media Group, 2019 WL 3287819 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2019)

July 22, 2019 Section 230

Facebook scores Section 230 win over claims brought by Russian page accused of meddling in 2016 U.S. presidential election

Plaintiffs owned and operated a Facebook page that Facebook shut down in 2018 because of concerns the page was associated with Russian interference with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. After getting shut down, plaintiffs sued Facebook alleging a number of claims, including:

damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for deprivation of a constitutional right by one acting under color of state law;
civil rights violations under California law;
breach of contract; and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Facebook moved to dismiss these claims under the Communications Decency Act at 47 U.S.C. §230. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

Section 230 immunizes defendants from liability if:

defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service;
the information for which plaintiff seeks to hold defendant liable is information provided by another information content provider; and
plaintiff’s claim seeks to hold defendant liable as the publisher or speaker of that information.

In this case, there was no dispute Facebook met the first two elements, i.e., it is a provider of an interactive computer service and the information (namely, the content of plaintiffs’ page) was provided by a party other than Facebook. The real dispute came under the third element.

Plaintiffs argued that Section 230 should not immunize Facebook because this case did not concern obscenity or any other form of unprotected speech. Instead, plaintiffs argued, the case concerned political speech that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. The court rejected this argument, holding that immunity under the Communications Decency Act does not contain a political speech exception. The statutory text provides that no “provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (Emphasis added). No distinction is made between political speech and non-political speech.

Plaintiff also argued that granting Facebook immunity would be counter to congressional intent behind the Communications Decency Act. But the court borrowed language from Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) on this point: “Both parties make a lot of sound and fury on the congressional intent of the immunity under section 230, but such noise ultimately signifies nothing. It is the language of the statute that defines and enacts the concerns and aims of Congress; a particular concern does not rewrite the language.” Looking to Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), the court noted that Ninth Circuit case law interpreting the language of the Communications Decency Act has held that “activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under section 230.”

Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 2019 WL 3254208 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2019)

July 18, 2019 DMCA

DMCA injunction against company accused of importing Iranian cracking tools and Chinese password generator to unlock software

Defendant entered into a software license agreement with plaintiff that allowed defendant to use plaintiff’s software in China. Plaintiff filed suit, accusing defendant of violating the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which enabled defendant to use the software in California. It sought a preliminary injunction and the court granted the motion.

The DMCA at 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) prohibits “circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to a copyrighted work.” The court found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on this claim: defendant’s computers contained evidence of crack files used to gain unauthorized access to plaintiff’s software, and these cracking tools were used to circumvent anti-piracy measures by unlocking the software. Also, defendant manually changed the MAC addresses of 11 computers in the United States, which also allowed defendant to circumvent plaintiff’s anti-piracy measures.

The court also found that plaintiff could prove violation of § 1201(a)(2), which prohibits importing and manufacturing “technology that circumvents a technological measure that ‘effectively controls access’ to a copyrighted work.” The forensic evidence collected from defendant’s computers showed that defendant imported a crack file from an Iranian software piracy website and obtained license key generator software from a Chinese website known to host pirated software.

Synopsys v. Innogrit, 2019 WL 2617091 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2019)

Photographer’s copyright claim against officer of company over photos on website moves forward

Plaintiff, a professional photographer, sued defendant company and an individual who was its “registered agent and … officer, director, manager, and/or other genre of principal” for copyright infringement over two photographs that appeared on the defendant company’s website. The infringement claims against the individual defendant included one for vicarious infringement.

The individual defendant moved to dismiss the vicarious infringement claim. The court denied the motion.

One “infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). “In order to establish vicarious liability, a copyright owner must demonstrate that the entity to be held so liable: (1) possessed the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity; and (2) possessed an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploited copyrighted materials.” Nelson-Salabes, Inc. v. Morningside Dev., LLC, 284 F.3d 505, 513 (4th Cir. 2002).

In this case, plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant controlled nearly all decisions of the company and was the dominant influence in the company. In addition, plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant “had the right and ability to supervise and/or control the infringing conduct of the company, and/or stop the infringements once they began.” Finally, plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant had an obvious and direct financial interest in the infringing activities of the company since he was an officer, director, manager or other principal of/for the company. As a principal of the company, the individual defendant’s financial interests were intertwined with the company’s. Therefore, the individual defendant had a direct and obvious financial interest in the company.

So the court concluded that plaintiff had presented sufficient facts with regard to each element of the vicarious liability claim.

Oppenheimer v. Morgan, 2019 WL 2617080 (W.D.N.C., June 26, 2019)

June 12, 2019 Section 230

Section 230 protected Twitter from liability for deleting Senate candidate’s accounts

Plaintiff (an Arizona senate candidate) sued Twitter after it suspended four of plaintiff’s accounts. He brought claims for (1) violation of the First Amendment; (2) violation of federal election law; (3) breach of contract; (4) conversion, (5) antitrust; (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (7) tortious interference; and (8) promissory estoppel.

Twitter moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including that Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230, rendered it immune from liability for each of plaintiff’s claims that sought to treat it as a publisher of third-party content.

The CDA protects from liability (1) any provider of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.

The court granted the motion to dismiss, on Section 230 grounds, all of the claims except the antitrust claim (which it dismissed for other reasons). It held that Twitter is a provider of an interactive computer service. And plaintiff sought to treat Twitter as a publisher or speaker by trying to pin liability on it for deleting accounts, which is a quintessential activity of a publisher. The deleted accounts were comprised of information provided by another information content provider (i.e., not Twitter, but plaintiff himself).

Brittain v. Twitter, 2019 WL 2423375 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2019)

June 11, 2019 Miscellaneous

Amazon faces liability for assuming a duty to act, by sending email warning of hoverboard fires

Online marketplaces should take note – sometimes trying to do the right thing will create more legal exposure.

Plaintiffs tragically lost their home and suffered injuries in a fire caused by a hoverboard they bought through Amazon. They sued Amazon. Their negligence claim arose under Tennessee tort law, arising from the principle set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, which states:

One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.

Plaintiffs claimed that defendant Amazon gratuitously undertook to warn the purchaser of the hoverboard (one of the plaintiffs) of the dangers posed by the hoverboard when it sent her an email outlining some of the dangers with hoverboards. Plaintiffs claimed that Amazon was negligent in that undertaking, and that the negligence caused plaintiffs harm.

The lower court granted summary judgment in Amazon’s favor, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the summary judgment order. It held that when Amazon chose to send the email to the one plaintiff, and in so doing sought to warn her of the dangers posed by the hoverboard, it assumed a duty to warn. There remained genuine issues of material fact as to whether Amazon breached that duty and whether any breach caused plaintiffs’ harm.

For instance, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Amazon’s failure to include certain information in the email amounted to negligence. The email did not inform hoverboard purchasers of any of the actions Amazon had taken to evaluate the dangers posed by hoverboards, including the findings and results of its internal investigation. The email did not inform hoverboard purchasers that the reported safety issues included a risk of fire or explosion. And the email did not inform hoverboard purchasers that Amazon had ceased all hoverboard sales worldwide.

And there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff read the email, and thereby could have acted in reliance on it. Though plaintiff had no specific recollection of reading the email, she “had a habit” of reading emails sent to her email address. She also testified that she would not have let the hoverboard enter or remain in her home had she known, among other things, that there had been 17 complaints of fires or explosions in the United States that involved hoverboards purchased on Amazon, that Amazon anticipated additional complaints, particularly during the upcoming holiday season, or that Amazon had ceased all hoverboard sales worldwide.

Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 WL 2417391 (6th Cir. June 10, 2019)

June 3, 2019 Trade Secrets

Question of who owns source code proceeds to trial in trade secrets case

Plaintiff sued its competitor in the mobile payment space for, among other things, trade secret misappropriation. Plaintiff claimed that defendant created its products using source code copied from plaintiff by two of plaintiff’s former employees who now work for defendant.

Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff did not own the source code (and the trade secrets in it), because an independent contractor created the source code.

The court denied the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had provided evidence that the source code was written by a number of parties (including its own employees) and not just the independent contractor that defendant claimed owned the source code. The court held that plaintiff had presented evidence to raise genuine issues for trial as to who wrote what code.

Citcon, USA, LLC v. RiverPay Inc., 2019 WL 2327885 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2019)