Tag Archives: secondary liability

pharma database isn’t commercial speech about listed products

Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 2021 WL 930453, No. 18-cv-06924-HSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021) Previous opinion. Alfasigma makes medical foods, which are allegedly not properly described as OTC. It sued First Databank for coding implemented in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

aiding and abetting liability in false advertising cases

 Bonus: Civil RICO claims survive! Sihler v. Fulfillment Lab, Inc., 2021 WL 1293839, No. 3:20-cv-01528-H-MSB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2021) Defendants allegedly used fake celebrity endorsements and reviews and misrepresentations about price and limited availability to induce consumers to buy … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Copyright year in review

I had a great time presenting this to the Copyright Society of Los Angeles. My slides. This is going to be an opinionated overview; I know you’re an expert audience and I’m going to try to highlight developments you may … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

No contributory liability for athlete union’s endorsement of supplement

DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Major League Baseball, 2020 WL 4430793, No. C 20-00546 WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2020)  Courts seem to perceive people affiliated with TM/(c) infringers as more blameworthy than people affiliated with false advertisers. One … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Just stocking a falsely advertised product isn’t enough for contributory liability

In re Outlaw Laboratory, LLP, 2020 WL 2797425, No. 18-CV-0840-GPC (S.D. Cal. May 29, 2020)  Plaintiff makes male enhancement products, allegedly in compliance with the DHSEA. It sued 51 convenience and liquor stores in the San Diego, California area; 23 … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

1201 claim to control device features survives

Philips North America, LLC v. v. Summit Imaging Inc., 2020 WL 1515624, No. C19-1745JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2020) But I was told that after Lexmark and Chamberlain, manufacturers weren’t using §1201 claims to control devices! The parties compete to … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

TheRealReal is ok except where it is FakeFake

Chanel, Inc. v. The RealReal, Inc., 2020 WL 1503422, No. 18-CV-10626 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) Very interesting case: Chanel sued TRR for trademark infringement etc. for allegedly overclaiming its association with Chanel by prominently advertising how much Chanel there … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

DOJ 230 workshop part 4

DOJ Section 230 Roundtable, afternoon Chatham House Rules Session 1: Content Moderation, Free Speech, and Conduct Beyond Speech How do platforms deal w/defamation? Standard practice is to review the complaint, the content; compare to TOS/code of conduct. Removal if warranted, … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

DOJ 230 workshop part 3

Panel 3: Imagining the Alternative The implications on competition, investment, and speech of Section 230 and proposed changes.     Moderator: Ryan Shores, Associate Deputy Attorney General Professor Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University: (c)(1) means no liability for 3d party content. Difference … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

DOJ 230 workshop part 2

Panel 2: Addressing Illicit Activity Online Whether Section 230 encourages or discourages platforms to address online harms, such as child exploitation, revenge porn, and terrorism, and its impact on law enforcement. Moderator: The Honorable Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment