Law Professor Orin Kerr discusses on The Volokh Conspiracy the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in “Rehberg v. Paulk, that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail. The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered.”
Online review website Yelp was named a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Los Angeles. The plaintiff claims it asked Yelp to remove a negative review, but Yelp refused and then demanded $300 a month to remove the review. See “Yelp and the Business of Extortion 2.0: Local business owners say Yelp offers to hide negative customer reviews of their businesses on its website … for a price,” and the “Yelp Class Action Lawsuit.”
The Digital Media Lawyer Blog: “While some courts are willing to enforce click-wrap or browse-wrap agreements that a consumer may have never read, a Federal judge in the Southern District of Florida drew the line at enforcing an agreement that a consumer never received. The case is Williams v. MetroPCS Wireless, Inc., S.D. Fla, No. 1:09-cv-22890, Order (Jan. 5, 2010), a proposed class action against a pre-paid wireless phone carrier. The complaint alleged that MetroPCS marketed itself as a provider of unlimited nationwide coverage, but that in reality, its coverage reached less than half of the U.S. population and excluded 11 of the top 25 metropolitan areas. The complaint further alleged that MetroPCS offered flat rate plans in which customers were to pay by the month, not the minute, and were not required to sign a contract. However, lead plaintiff Marcia Williams claimed that after purchasing an unlimited $45/month plan, she was charged $225 for one month’s service. The complaint sought equitable and declaratory relied, damages, attorneys’ fees and a trial by jury.”
Digital Media Lawyer Blog: “Despite the tremors caused by the Lenz case, a recent decision by a Wisconsin District Court shows that it can still be difficult to obtain a judgment holding a defendant liable for sending a false DMCA notice. See Third Education Group, Inc. v. Phelps, E.D.Wisc., No. 07-c-1094, Decision and Order Following Court Trial (November 25, 2009).”
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act puts a powerful tool in the hands of a person who claims to be the owner of a copyright. Copyright law provides for six-figure statutory damages against an ISP who permits infringing material to reside on a site under its control after receiving notice of the presence of the material. However, the DMCA provides immunity from these civil damages if an ISP takes down such material in response to a notice from the putative owner of the copyright, and meets certain other tests. This provides a strong incentive for an ISP to reflexively take down infringing material — such as by disabling an entire website — upon receiving a DMCA takedown notice.
Social Networking Law Blog: “This week, FINRA — the largest independent U.S. securities regulator — issued Regulatory Notice 10-06, Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web Sites. The Executive Summary provides: ‘Americans are increasingly using social media Web sites, such as blogs and social networking sites, for business and personal communications. Firms have asked FINRA staff how the FINRA rules governing communications with the public apply to social media sites that are sponsored by a firm or its registered representatives. This Notice provides guidance to firms regarding these issues.'”