Posts Tagged ‘social networking’

July 10 roundup

  • Hearse driver in HOV lane to highway patrol: you mean I can’t count the corpse as a passenger? [Michelle Lou, CNN]
  • “Caterpillar Now Going After All The Cats For Trademark Cancellations” [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt, earlier]
  • Before trying to open a storefront business in San Francisco you might look to this advice from commercial real estate brokers about the city’s zoning and permit hurdles, and please quit using words like “bonkers” or “flabbergasting” [Robert Fruchtman Twitter thread]
  • “Lawyer engaged in ‘sustained campaign of unfounded litigation,’ disbarment recommendation says” [ABA Journal; Waukegan, Illinois]
  • Breaking from two other federal appeals courts, Third Circuit rules that Amazon as a platform can be sued under strict liability principles over defective items sold by third-party vendors on its site [Brendan Pierson, Reuters] Should the ruling stand, implications for online marketplaces are dire [Eric Goldman]
  • New challenges for Mathew Higbee, high volume copyright enforcement lawyer, and his clients [Paul Alan Levy, earlier]

After lawsuit, ChristianMingle.com agrees to do gay online matchmaking

The Church of Anti-Discrimination, most confident of sects, will settle for nothing short of full establishment: under a California court settlement, ChristianMingle.com, which bills itself as the largest online Christian dating site, has agreed to establish search options for men seeking men and women seeking women. Two California men had sued under the state’s expansive Unruh Civil Rights Act. Owner Spark Networks, which admitted no wrongdoing, “agreed to pay each plaintiff $9,000 each and $450,000 in attorneys’ fees to the two men’s lawyers.” [Jacob Gershman and Sara Randazzo, WSJ Law Blog] At Patheos, David Smalley, who describes himself as a pro-gay atheist activist, says the episode is based on too broad a definition of public accommodation; declining to offer a particular service is not the same as offering it to the public but turning down some customers. “Since when can the government tell us what products or services we must offer to future customers? Every atheist, every liberal, and every business owner needs to fight for Christian Mingle’s rights to offer the products or services they choose, even if we disagree with their practices or philosophy behind it all.”

Related: Ontario won’t license grads of conservative Christian law school [Charles Lewis/National Post, earlier]

Will California regulate social networking?

State Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) has vowed to press the idea, the apparent idea being that the government is a better guardian of privacy interests than Facebook and similar services [Jacqueline Otto, CEI “Open Market”] Meanwhile, Geoffrey Manne reports that the feds are itching to start an antitrust or unfair competition case against Google [Main Justice via Truth on the Market]

Unpleasant buzz

Patrick at Popehat is not happy with a class action settlement over consumer non-injury from the Google Buzz service:

Mason and Ram will apply for, and probably get, $2,125,000 of that [$8.5 million] common fund, for all of their hard work representing thousands of people just like me, who weren’t damaged by Google because they ignored Google’s offer to try Google Buzz, a demonstrated failure that’s used by about seven people (not all of whom are class representatives) nationwide. …

If there’s any justice, and there isn’t, the Northern District of California will award Mason and Ram a dollar for every consumer who was injured by Google Buzz. That and five hundred more dollars will cover their airfare home.

March 31 roundup