by Paul Alan Levy
We have previously blogged about the crucial role played by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in protecting the ability of consumers to speak effectively about corporate or political wrongdoing, by protecting the hosts of web sites and email services from being sued over the contents of communications that are made using their services. Absent such protection, Internet hosts would have to worry about being held liable each time the target of speech complained about posted content, and many hosts would take the communications down rather than run the risk of having to defend a lawsuit or even the risk of being held liable. Indeed, just before the new libel tourism bill was passed with specific protection against enforcement of judgments that defy section 230, the bill's sponsor expressly acknowledged on the House floor this fundamental aspect of section 230's purpose. Instead of subjecting Internet hosts to liability, Congress decided to put them in a litigation-free zone that enables them to make judgments of what speech to leave alone and what to take down. Instead, the law says, if someone is disgruntled about speech, the remedy has to be against the speaker and not the medium.
But what happens after the plaintiff wins that case against the speaker? Must the plaintiff accept the fact that the content remains online? This week, two courts addressed that question, and although the cases are distinguishable on their factual and procedural contexts, the results point in different directions. Not surprisingly, both cases involve postings on Ripoff Report.
Continue reading "Courts address a section 230 question that seems hard at first blush– what happens after a defamation plaintiff wins against the poster?" »
The National Consumer Law Center has published this helpful nine-page report on the role of the states (and those seeking to enforce state law) under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The Report covers two basic topics: (1) the extent to which Dodd-Frank expressly authorizes state Attorneys General and other state regulators to enforce federal consumer protection law; and (2) Dodd-Frank's position on preemption (or not) of state consumer protection and other law.
Here's an excerpt of the Report's executive summary (with minor edits and links added):
Continue reading "NCLC Publishes Report on the Role of the States Under the Dodd-Frank Act" »
by Paul Alan Levy
Over the past couple of months, I have discussed the heavily redacted filings in Rosetta Stone’s appeal of a ruling that Google did not violate the trademark laws by allowing advertisers to bid on the display of ads to Internet users who searched on Google for the term “Rosetta Stone.” The parties responded to Public Citizen’s request for consent to motion for leave to intervene and to unseal Rosetta Stone’s brief by allowing it all to be filed publicly; once that happened, review of the former redactions (shown here) made it apparent that there was never any basis for sealing in the first place.
At the same time, Google filed its own brief on appeal, containing a number of redactions which, Google’s counsel told me, had been made at Rosetta Stone’s insistence. Again Public Citizen asked for consent to motions for leave to intervene and to unseal, and again the parties promptly agreed to seek leave for unsealing; again the Fourth Circuit gave its consent. And once again, now that Google has filed its brief without any redactions, comparison of the brief with the former redactions leaves me scratching my head about why any reasonable litigant would have thought that the facts concealed here could have outweighed the public interest in access to judicial records.
Continue reading "Unsealed Google Brief in Rosetta Stone Appeal Shows Baselessness of Original Redactions" »