“For the last several years, Wal-Mart Stores and other large chains have threatened legal action to intimidate Web sites that get hold of advertising circulars early and publish prices online ahead of company-set release dates.” After one such site received a nastygram from Office Depot, it began reporting forthcoming sale prices at “Office Despot”, whereupon the retailer sued, without ultimate success but presumably at a nontrivial defense cost (Randal Stross, “What to Do When Goliaths Roar?”, New York Times, Nov. 18).
Posts Tagged ‘online speech’
No naming the blackmailed royal — even on US websites?
Legally hazardous for a US-based website to make itself available for British readers to visit? “[Attorney Giovanni] Di Stefano claims that he has consulted several QCs and has been told that British authorities could have powers to act against foreign-based broadcasters and websites and issue a European arrest warrant. They could be liable for breaching an English court order guaranteeing anonymity to the blackmail victim and witnesses if their speculation reached Britain.” (Adam Fresco and Dominic Kennedy, “Charge anyone naming Royal ‘victim’, says accused’s lawyer”, Times Online, Oct. 31).
Criticizes BidZirk on his blog, and survives
Eric Goldman calls the case of BidZirk v. Smith, filed by a South Carolina eBay reseller against the blogger who’d criticized its services, “a flagship example of how a pernicious and misguided plaintiff with a thin skin can ruin a blogger’s life.” Maybe “ruin” is no longer the operative term, since a federal court has just thrown out the case. Among the court’s determinations: calling a company’s founder a “yes man” is opinion and not actionable as defamation (Oct. 28 and, before that, Nov. 21, 2006; decision (PDF)). More: Ron Coleman fingers as a culprit the “American Rule” (no shifting of fees) under which “there is for all practical purposes no downside to suing someone on the most preposterous of grounds and losing — hence making the bringing of meritless litigation a part of every large company’s toolkit for silencing criticism and destroying smaller competitors.”
Edwards campaign: take down that student YouTube
Which has merely induced Dan Kennedy (Oct. 27) to reproduce the thing as a public service (Jim Rutenberg, “Student Paper Upsets the Edwards Camp”, New York Times, Oct. 26). The Streisand Effect strikes again…
What Elizabeth Wurtzel tells us about the XOXOHTH lawsuit
You may recall that a couple of Yale Law School students sued the administrator of a law-school bulletin board because they blamed silly gossip about them on the board for costing them job offers. (The administrator himself lost his job offer in response to the uproar.) If so, how come their Yale Law classmate Elizabeth Wurtzel—whose topless photos decorate the Internet, who wrote about her own cocaine and Ritalin addictions, and who was fired from a newspaper for plagiarism—was able to get a job offer from WilmerHale? More on Wurtzel: Taylor; Lat; Bonin, all talking about this NY Times piece. Previous skepticism about the lawsuit: Ilya Somin.
Don’t link, criticize, use our name, refer to us, view our source code…
Just by browsing the website of a company called Inventor-Link, visitors supposedly consent to abide by the terms of a “user agreement” which “strictly” prohibits them from using not only any of the site’s content but even its name without express permission. “Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.” The company is invoking these terms in a cease and desist letter “in an attempt to stop criticism of the company that appears on InventorEd.org, a website that provides information about invention promotion businesses and scams.” Inventor-Link’s law firm? None other than Dozier Internet Law, criticized in this space and many others last week over its claim that its nastygrams are themselves the subject of copyright and cannot be posted on the web. And the Dozier firm’s own website has a user agreement that purports to prohibit “linking to its website, using the firm’s name ‘in any manner’ without permission,” and, weirdest of all, even looking at its source code by clicking on your browser’s “view source code” command. (Greg Beck, Consumer Law & Policy, Oct. 17). More: Boing Boing, TechDirt (including comment that reads, in its entirety, “You are not allowed to read this comment”), Slashdot.
Nastygram: don’t you dare post this nastygram on the web
Ted has briefly mentioned (Oct. 8) the recent doings of an outfit called Dozier Internet Law, whose cease and desist letter to a consumer-complaint site not only demanded that the site take down certain statements about Dozier’s client, DirectBuy, but also asserted that the cease and desist letter was itself the subject of copyright and could not be posted in part or full on the web. Eric Turkewitz, having called this approach “chuckleheaded” in an initial post (Oct. 5 — scroll), is now all over the story (Oct. 9 and Oct. 11), especially after attorney John Dozier of the firm in question submitted a comment whose clueless snippiness really must be seen to be believed.
More: from Consumer Law & Policy, Patry Copyright Blog, Legal Ethics Forum, and TechDirt, as well as extensive coverage at TDAXP.
Disparaging a trademark
Can a court really issue an injunction ordering someone to refrain from engaging in such disparagement in blog comments and other such public forums? A federal court did so in the case of Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey (Eugene Volokh, Aug. 14).
Sues blogger for “business interference”, wins $7500
Lee Kaplan, a journalist who writes on Middle East controversies for (among other outlets) David Horowitz’s conservative Front Page, attracted the critical interest of a Berkeley student named Yaman Salahi, who set up a blog entitled Lee Kaplan Watch that assails Kaplan and his work. Kaplan proceeded to sue Salahi on charges of “business interference” in small claims court, a venue lacking in the extensive fact-finding and procedural protections that would attach to a conventional suit for, say, defamation. Last month the court awarded Kaplan $7500. The blogosphere has begun to notice the story with some alarm: Seeing the Forest for the Trees, Dean’s World, Ann Althouse, Slashdot. More links: Media Law Resource Center. Kaplan’s side of the story is here.
“Builders, Contractors Hammer Consumer Sites”
In two separate New Jersey cases, building contractors RSA Enterprises and WBG Builders are suing websites that carried consumer complaints about them; in a third case in Maryland, a suit by SCS Contracting Group names as defendant the well-known site Angie’s List, which compiles user reviews of home-improvement services. (Truman Lewis, ConsumerAffairs.com, May 4). More: John Kelly, “Homeowner’s Web Gripe Draws Contractor Lawsuit”, Washington Post, Mar. 13 (SCS Contracting versus Angie’s List); Eric Goldman, Apr. 25 (RSA Enterprises versus Rip-Off Report, and Google). P.S. Eric Goldman adds further details.