Lighter manufacturers ask for more CPSC regulation

Why?

[David H. Baker, the Lighter Association’s general counsel] said association members want mandatory standards to help reduce their legal liability. He explained that members often get sued for fires resulting from malfunctioning lighters. In many cases, he said, the lighter was destroyed in the fire, so there’s no proof of who made the lighter. But the easiest targets are the well-known brands such as Bic, Scripto and Swedish Match — companies that are members of the association, Baker explained.

Chinese off-brand import lighters are only 30% likely to meet voluntary industry safety standards, and manufacturers are not just facing the cheaper competition from the imports, but apparently also having to swallow liability from accidents caused by the more dangerous imports.

Filed under: Sweden

Sexist beer ads

Now it’s a group of Italian female lawyers who are suing to suppress that particular variety of commercial speech. (Nick Pisa, “Parking is no joke as Italy’s women sue over beer ad”, Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Sept. 17). For earlier precedents in the U.S. (Stroh’s sued over “Swedish bikini team”) and Canada (Ontario vs. Molson’s and Labatt’s ads), see Carlin Meyer, “Sex, Sin, and Women’s Liberation: Against Porn-Suppression”, Texas Law Review, April 1994 (PDF), at footnote 314. Another example: RealBeer.com, July 16, 1999 (Venezuela).

Filed under: harassment law, Italy, Sweden

Why they aren’t running the cartoons

The Boston Phoenix (“World of Pain”, Feb. 9) tells readers that “frankly, the primary reason” it isn’t going to run the Danish Muhammed cartoons:

Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. …Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.

Somewhere there’s probably an issue of vicarious/employer liability lurking in here — if printing the cartoons did lead to violence, the Phoenix’s owners might well end up having to pay. But of course the venerable alt-weekly’s stance is practically a profile in courage compared with that of editors, publishers, governments and university officials in many other places, including South Africa (bans publication of images), Sweden (reported to have shut down website carrying them), Canada’s Prince Edward Island (university confiscates student newspaper, edict forbids weblog comments) and so on (Michelle Malkin roundup, Feb. 9). Commentaries worth reading: Krauthammer, Kinsley, and, from a different perspective, a commenter at Andrew Sullivan’s. (More on the cartoons here and here.)

Filed under: Danish cartoons, Denmark, free speech, free speech in Canada, hate speech, publishers, schools, South Africa, Sweden, workplace

“No one is being force fed soda”

My op-ed on the litigation against Big Cola (see Feb. 2) draws an L.A. Times reader letter (Feb. 7). Also welcome Andrew Sullivan readers (Jan. 27). More by Sullivan: “Hey, these adverts are making me fat”, The Times (U.K.), Jan. 29; blog posts including Jan. 25 and Jan. 26. And see Philip Wallach, “There Are Deeper Pockets than ‘Big Soda'”, The American Enterprise, Dec. 15; John Luik, “Sponge Bob, Wide Pants?”, TCS Daily, Jan. 25; and Rogier van Bakel, Jan. 23.

On allegations of a link between food advertising and childhood obesity, see Todd Zywicki, Dec. 21 and links. According to John Hood (“Bill Won’t Stop War on Ads”, Carolina Journal, Nov. 11):

American children are now gaining weight even as they watch somewhat less commercial television than previous generations did. One study estimated that children saw about 15 percent fewer TV ads in 2003 than their counterparts did in 1994. Alas, that does not mean today’s kids are playing outside more. They simply have many more commercial-free alternatives such as premium cable, tapes and DVDs, and video and computer games.

Another unfortunate fact for advocates of regulating food advertising is that their pet idea has already been done to the max – that is, in the form of outright bans of ads targeting children – in places such as Sweden and Quebec. The obesity rate of Swedish children differs little from that of British children, however. The same is true in Quebec vs. other Canadian provinces.

Meanwhile, Jacob Sullum (“Dora the Exploiter”, syndicated/Reason, Jan. 25) comments on the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s suit against Viacom/Nickolodeon and Kellogg (see Jan. 20):

The plaintiffs say it’s not about the money. I believe them. This lawsuit, which CSPI and its allies plan to file under a Massachusetts consumer protection statute prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” is really about censorship. By threatening onerous damages, CSPI aims to achieve through the courts what it has unsuccessfully demanded from legislators and regulators for decades: a ban on food advertising aimed at children.

Earlier, Sullum reported on the CDC venturing into West Virginia to stalk obesity “vectors” (“Watching the Detectives”, syndicated/Reason, Aug. 26).

Filed under: Canada, Massachusetts, not about the money, soft drinks, Sweden, West Virginia

EU court: church website violated privacy law

In a widely awaited decision, the European Court of Justice has ruled that a Swedish woman can be fined about $500 for identifying and publishing personal details about fellow church volunteers on her personal web site in breach of “data protection” privacy laws. Bodil Lindqvist of Alseda parish had published online “some full names, telephone numbers and references to hobbies and jobs held by her colleagues. In relation to one lady, Lindqvist also revealed that the volunteer had injured her foot and was working part-time on medical grounds.” A Swedish court found that she had violated data-privacy law in posting the page and the European Court agreed. (“Identifying people on-line violates Data Protection laws, says European Court”, Out-Law (UK), Nov. 7). We originally reported on the case Sept. 20, 2000.

Filed under: churches, Europe, privacy, Sweden

Archived media law & free speech items, pre-July 2003

Whatever you do, don’t criticize lawyers — 2003: “The intimidation tactics of Madison County“, Jun. 9 (& updates Jul. 12, Jul. 26). 2002: “‘Ex-jurors file $6 billion suit against ’60 Minutes’“, Dec. 16-17; “Lawyers fret about bad image” (Fla. bar plans to rate and monitor tone of journalists’ coverage), Oct. 3; “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), Jun. 20 (& letter to the editor, July 6); “Dangers of complaining about lawyers” (Ga. considers easing defamation counter-complaints by lawyers), Mar. 30-Apr. 1. 2000: “Australian roundup” (lawyers sue cabinet minister for suggesting they overcharge and lack ethics), Sept. 6-7; “Target Detroit” (class action lawyers personally sue DaimlerChrysler lawyer, citing his critical remarks regarding them), Jul. 19-20; “Baron’s judge grudge” (lawyer bullies alt-weekly Dallas Observer over expos? March 23. 1999: “Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (class-action attorneys sue columnist Bill McClellan for making fun of them), Nov. 4 (updated Nov. 30 (he criticizes them again, though suit is still pending) and Feb. 29, 2000 (they agree to drop suit); “Couple ordered to pay $57,000 for campaign ads criticizing judge“, Oct. 18; “Think I’m too litigious? I’ll sue! (II)” (lawyer sues over being called ambulance chaser), Aug. 16.

Hate speech, hate crime laws, 2002: “British free-speech case“, Dec. 18-19; Letter to the editor, Oct. 23; “Cutting edge of discrimination law” (Huckleberry Finn in schools), Oct. 7-8; “Prominent French author sued for ‘insulting Islam’“, Aug. 23-25 (& Sept. 18-19, Oct. 25-27 (acquitted)); “French ban sought for Fallaci book on Islam“, Jun. 11-12; “Our editor interviewed“, May 29. 2001: “Australia: anti-American tripped up by speech code“, Dec. 21-23; “Compulsory chapel for Minn. lawyers“, Dec. 18; “EU considers plans to outlaw racism“, Dec. 5-6; “U.K. may ban anti-religious speech“, Oct. 19-21; “‘Hate speech’ law invoked against anti-American diatribe” (Canada), Oct. 17-18; “Judge to ‘Sopranos’ suit: fuhgetaboutit“, Sept. 21-23 (& Apr. 6-8); “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3. 2000: “U.S. Department of Justice vs. Columbus Day?“, Oct. 3; “Punitive damages for hatemongering?” (Wash. Post on Aryan Nations case), Sept. 19; “Australia: antibias laws curb speech” (newspaper’s slighting ethnic references), July 11; “Columnist-fest” (John Rocker case), Jan. 18; “Watch your speech in Laguna Beach“, Jan. 13-14. 1999: “Most unsettling thing we’ve heard about Canada in a while” (hate speech laws), Dec. 17-19; “Speech police go after opinion articles, editorial cartoons“, Aug. 28-29; “Hate-crime laws: why they aren’t liberal“, Aug. 9.

Intellectual property, 2003: “He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6. 2002: “Macaulay on copyright law“, Oct. 14; “‘Judge Throws Out “Harry Potter” Copyright Suit’“, Oct. 7-8; “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/To have a precociously musical child” (singer James Brown sued by daughters), Sept. 20-22; “Skittish at Kinko’s” (won’t make copies of customer’s own published writing), Jul. 26-28; “Stolen silence?” (John Cage composition), Jul. 19-21; “Law blogs“, Jul. 3-9; “‘Top ten new copyright crimes’” (satire), Jun. 3-4; “‘A fence too far’” (Hollings bill), May 20-21; “ReplayTV copyright fight“, May 6; “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Intel Corp. versus yoga foundation“, Apr. 1-2; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “British Telecom claims to own hyperlinks“, Feb. 13-14 (& Oct. 1-2); “Overlawyered film sets“, Feb. 8-10; “‘”Let’s Roll” Trademark Battle Is On’“, Feb. 4-5 (& Feb. 11-12); “‘Aborigines claim kangaroo copyright’“, Feb. 1-3. 2001: “Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Barney’s bluster“, June 25 (& “Welcome Slashdot readers“, July 5); “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), June 20; “Value of being able to endure parody without calling in lawyers: priceless” (MasterCard), April 25; “Patenting the Web?“, April 3-4; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, Mar. 19-20. 2000: “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000. 1999: “Hey, what is this place, anyway?” (Pez Co. claims right to restrict use of word “Pez”), Oct. 16-17; “Copyright and conscience” (goodbye to “Dysfunctional Family Circus”), Oct. 7 (& see main IP section on tech law page).

Lawsuits intimidate expression, 2003: “McDonald’s sues food critic” (Italy), Jun. 16-17. 2002: “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& May 27, 2002, Oct. 4-6, 2002, Aug. 6, 2001); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26. 2001: “Gary to Gannett: pay up for that investigative reporting“, March 30-April 1; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20; “‘Persistent suitor’” (criticism of academic journals’ publisher), Feb. 6. 2000: “Hauling commentators to court“, Dec. 1; “Degrees of intimidation” (book on “diploma mills”, Apr. 28-30; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website“, Mar. 31-April 2; “Costs of veggie-libel laws“, Mar. 20. 1999: “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23.

Bans on web content not “accessible” to disabled: see special section on disabled rights page.

Blaming media for violence, 2002: “Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Addictive’ computer game blamed for suicide“, Apr. 3-4 (& letter to the editor, Apr. 11). 2001: “Blame video games, again” (WTC terrorism), Sept. 24; “Put the blame on games” (Columbine), April 24, 2001 (& see March 6, 2002: judge dismisses case); “Judge throws out Hollywood- violence suit” (Oliver Stone, Natural Born Killers), March 13-14. 2000: “Hollywood under fire: nose of the Camel?“, Sept. 19; “‘Violent media is good for kids’“, Sept. 13-14; “Shoot-’em-ups: hand over your files“, June 19; “Judge dismisses suit blaming entertainment business for school shootings“, April 13. 1999: “Down the censorship-by-lawsuit road“, Oct. 12; “‘Bringing art to court’“, Sept. 9; “Censorship via (novel) lawsuit” (media companies sued after school shootings), July 22.

Harassment law: “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (pin-ups, bar owner case), May 4, 2000; “The scarlet %+#?*^)&!“, March 7; “Recommended reading” (Roland White in London Times on chill to office banter), Jan. 25, 2000; “Suppression of conversation vs. improvement of conversation“, Nov. 12, 1999 (excerpts from Joan Kennedy Taylor book); “‘Personally agree with’ harassment policy — or you’re out the door“, Sept. 22; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.

Those dangerous emails: “Cartoonist’s suit over practical joke“, Oct. 26-28, 2001 (& letter to the editor, Nov. 29); “Big fish devour the little?” (listserv defamation, aquatic plants case), Aug. 6, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (email-shredding software), Feb. 19-21, 2000; “Emails that ended 20 Times careers“, Feb. 8-9, 2000; “Hold your e-tongue” (emails “can kill you in a courtroom”), Nov. 9, 1999; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg email system censors bad words), July 30; “‘Destroy privacy expectations’: lawyer” (tell workers their email and hard drives are open to company inspection), July 26, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.

Web liability issues, 2002: “AVweb capitulates to defamation suit“, Sept. 16-17 (& Sept. 18-19); “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& Oct. 4-6); “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Columnist-fest” (N.Y. Times v. Tasini), Feb. 11-12; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20. 2001: “Words as property: ‘entrepreneur’” (domain name dispute), Nov. 1; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit” (Italy licenses web publishers), May 21; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20. 2000: “Yahoo pulls message board“, Oct. 18; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’” (Swedish privacy laws), Sept. 20; “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “Dangers of linking“, June 7; “Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “eBay yanks e-meter auctions” (copyright claim), May 3; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website” (metatags), March 31-April 2; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31-Jan. 2. 1999: “Link your way to liability?” (professor sues over “course critique” website), Nov. 15 (& update Oct. 10, 2000); “We ourselves use ‘sue’” (competitors’ names used as metatags), Sept. 25-26; “Don’t link or I’ll sue” (“deep linking” suits), Aug. 13 (& update April 5, 2000: court rules deep linking not violation). Plus: our 404 message; & see data collection, disabled online access issues, and high-tech law generally.

Other media/performance accessibility issues, 2002: “11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit against “Millionaire” TV show over telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001). 2001: “‘Panel backs deaf patron’s claim against club’” (interpreter demand at comedy club), March 9-11. 2000: “Seats in all parts” (theaters), Dec. 29, 2000-Jan. 2, 2001; “Movie caption trial begins” (assistive devices aid concert bootleggers), Aug. 1; “Complaint: recreated slave ship not handicap accessible“, July 21-23; “Preferred seating” (theaters), April 25-26; “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, March 22; “‘Deaf group files suit against movie theaters’” (closed captioning demand), Feb. 19-21; “The fine print” (sue Boston Globe for reducing type size?), Feb. 17.

Surveillance: “Collateral damage in Drug War” (identity of book buyer), Apr. 28-30, 2000; “Chat into the microphone, please” (SEC plan to trawl Web), Apr. 11; “The booths have ears” (restaurant conversations spied on in U.K.), Apr. 5; “The bold cosmetologists of law enforcement“, Mar. 29; “Your hairdresser — and informant?“, Mar. 16, 2000; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999.

Defamation, 2003: “Around the blogs” (N.Y. Times brass), Jun. 18-19. 2002: “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d“, May 22-23; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20; “The talk of Laconia“, Jan. 2-3. 2001: “Attorney can sue for being called ‘fixer’“, Dec. 5-6; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “Disparaging stadium nickname leads to suit“, Jul. 5 (& update Aug. 29-30: company drops suit); “Patenting the Web?” (TechSearch v. Intel defamation suit), Apr. 3-4. 2000: “Toronto coach: Ich kann nicht anders” (had to file defamation suit), Apr. 25-26 (& update May 4, case dropped); “Great moments in defamation law” (armed robber sues own lawyer for mistakenly calling him heroin instead of crack abuser), Apr. 14-16.

Advertising, 2003: “Clear Channel = Deep Pocket” (advertising as nexus of liability in nightclub fire?, Mar. 10-11. 2002: “Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6 (& May 18-21, 2000); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Norway toy-ad crackdown” (sexism), Apr. 23-24; “‘FTC Taking “Seriously” Request to Probe Firearms Sites’” (unlawful to recommend guns for family security?), Jan. 16-17. 2001: “Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Ghost blurber case“, June 12; “Old-hairstyle photo prompts lawsuit“, June 1-3; “Junk-fax bonanza“, March 27 (& March 3-5, 2000, Oct. 22, 1999). 2000: “Web-advertisers’ apocalypse?“, Apr. 20. 1999: “Free expression, with truth in advertising thrown in?” (lawyer’s Jolly Roger flag dispute), Dec. 31; “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23, 1999 (and see lawyers’ advertising page).

TV, 2003: “He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Jailhouse rock” (VH1), Mar. 10-11; “‘Jack Ass blasts “Jackass”‘“, Jan. 3-6. 2002: “Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Demand for more ugly people on TV’” (Norway: higher “ugly quotas” sought), Oct. 21; “Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6; “11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit over show’s telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001); “Soap star: ABC wrote my character out of the show“, Apr. 10. 2001: “Suing ‘The Sopranos’“, Apr. 6-8 (& Jul. 12-14, 2002: case dropped); “‘Survivor’ contestant sues“, Feb. 7-8. 2000: “Behind ‘Boston Public’“, Nov. 21; “Palm Beach County ‘Under Control’” (suit against network for erroneous election-eve projection), Nov. 16; “Why the bad guys can’t stand John Stossel“, Aug. 18-20; “Won’t pay for set repairs” (Orkin ad leads viewers to throw objects at their TVs), May 30; “Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed” (show’s email contact with young fans), May 25; “Sock puppet lawsuit” (“Late Show with Conan O’Brien” writer), Apr. 27; “Who wants to sue for a million?” (suit against game show for lack of disabled access), Mar. 24-26 (& update Jun. 12); “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, Mar. 22; “Letterman sign suit“, Mar. 17-19. 1999: “The fateful T-shirt” (Leno show giveaway suit), Dec. 7.

“A judge bans a book” (incitement to tax evasion), Jun. 18-19, 2003.

“Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6, 2003.

“Start that movie on time, or else“, Feb. 20, 2003 (& Jan. 10).

“Fair housing law vs. free speech“, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2003.

“Campaign regulation vs. free speech“, May 18-21, 2000 (& Oct. 4-6, 2002).

“‘Greek net cafes face ruin’” (ban on computer games), Sept. 23, 2002.

“Penthouse sued on behalf of disappointed Kournikova-oglers“, Jun. 3-4, 2002.

“Privacy claim by Bourbon Street celebrant“, Sept. 28-30, 2001 (& Mar. 6, 2002, Apr. 15, 2002).

“Radio daze” (Clear Channel hardball), Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 2001.

“The document-shredding facility at Pooh Corner” (Disney dispute with rights holders), Aug. 24-26, 2001.

“‘Internet Usage Records Accessible Under FOI Laws’” (schools case), Nov. 14, 2000.

“Collateral damage in Drug War” (customer records of Denver’s Tattered Cover bookstore subpoenaed), April 28-30, 2000 (update, Oct. 27-29: judge orders records handed over); “‘Power lawyers may sue for reparations’” (sue textbook makers over representation of blacks?), Oct. 25, 2000; “Baleful blurbs” (book publishers sued over errors in cover copy), Nov. 16, 1999.

“Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30, 2000.

“Dusting ’em off” (laws against profanity in public), May 18-21, 2000.

“Thought for the day” (Posner on censorship), April 25-26, 2000.

“Verdict on Consumer Reports: false, but not damaging“, April 10, 2000; “Costly state of higher awareness” (libel suit, author Deepak Chopra), March 9, 2000.

“Mormon actress sues over profanity” (says Univ. of Utah theater dept. insisted she utter foul language in scripts), Jan. 24, 2000.

“FCC as Don Corleone“, Oct. 5-6, 1999.

“The shame of the ACLU” (Aguilar v. Avis: ACLU intervenes on anti- free-speech side), Sept. 7, 1999.

“Weekend reading” (tabloid law), Aug. 7-8, 1999.

Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:

“The Law on Trial“, Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1997 (review of Beyond all Reason by Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry).

“Shut Up, They Explained” (“zero-tolerance” harassment policies), Reason, June 1997.

“Judge Dread” (on Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah), Reason, April 1997.

Filed under: ACLU, advertising, Australia, Bill McClellan, broadcasters, Chrysler, Clear Channel, copyright, Dallas, deep pocket, Denver, fair housing, free speech, Italy, John Stossel, libel slander and defamation, Madison County, music and musicians, newspapers, Norway, online speech, reparations, Sweden, trademarks, Utah

Archived technology law items, pre-July 2003

[intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark cases]

[Microsoft legal woes]

Web liability issues, 2002: “‘Google sued over search ratings’“, Nov. 6; “AVweb capitulates to defamation suit“, Sept. 16-17 (& Sept. 18-19); “Defying the link-banners“, Aug. 22; “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& May 27, 2002, Aug. 6, 2001); “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Columnist-fest” (N.Y. Times v. Tasini), Feb. 11-12; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20. 2001: “KPMG” (company thinks it can prohibit linking to its site), Dec. 11; “Words as property: ‘entrepreneur’” (domain name dispute), Nov. 1; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “Domain-name disputes are busting out all over“, June 29-July 1; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit” (Italy licenses web publishers), May 21; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20. 2000: “Yahoo pulls message board“, Oct. 18; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’” (Swedish privacy laws), Sept. 20; “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “Dangers of linking“, June 7; “Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “eBay yanks e-meter auctions” (copyright claim), May 3; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website” (metatags), Mar. 31-Apr. 2; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31-Jan. 2. 1999: “Link your way to liability?” (professor sues over “course critique” website), Nov. 15 (& update Oct. 10, 2000); “We ourselves use ‘sue’” (competitors’ names used as metatags), Sept. 25-26; “‘Don’t link or I’ll sue’” (“deep linking” suits), Aug. 13 (& update April 5, 2000: court rules deep linking not violation). Plus: our 404 message; & see data collection, disabled access issues.

Website accessibility: “‘Judge: Disabilities act doesn’t cover Web“, Oct. 22, 2002; “Website accessibility law hits the U.K.” (Scotland), May 7, 2001; “Olympics website’s accessibility complaint“, Aug. 16-17, 2000; “Disabled accessibility for campaign websites: the gotcha game“, July 19-20; “Welcome readers” (Intellectual Capital), June 19; “ADA & the web: sounding the alarm“, May 24; “Access excess“, May 2; “ADA & freedom of expression on the Web“, Feb. 10-11; editor’s testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 9, 2000; “Accessible websites no snap“, Dec. 21, 1999; “AOL sued for failure to accommodate blind users“, Nov. 5, 1999.

Toshiba settlement, bug and glitch liability, 2002: “7,000 missing colors, many of them crisply green“, Aug. 29. 2001: “Update: Compaq beats glitch suit“, May 11-13; “‘Lawyers to Get $4.7 Million in Suit Against Iomega’” (zip drive defect allegations), May 8. 2000: “‘Laptop lawsuit: Toshiba, feds settle’“, Oct. 25; “In praise of bugs“, May 1; “Silicon siege” (CNet report), April 7-9. 1999: “Toshiba and Ford, in the same boat“, Dec. 2; “Don’t redeem that coupon!“, Nov. 24-25; “Class actions vs. high-tech“, Nov. 23; “How I hit the class action jackpot” (Stuart Taylor, Jr.), Nov. 17; “More details on Toshiba“, Nov. 5-7; “Toshiba flops over“, Nov. 3.

Email and liability: “Employers liable for not filtering raunchy spam?“, Apr. 10-13, 2003; “Big fish devour the little?” (listserv defamation, aquatic plants case), Aug. 6, 2001; “E-privacy invasion made simple“, Feb. 14-15, 2001; “Watch those fwds” (subpoenas of bulletin board postings; Dow Chemical fires employees for email use), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Hold your e-tongue” (emails “can kill you in a courtroom”), Nov. 9, 1999; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg email system censors bad words), Jul. 30; “‘Destroy privacy expectations’: lawyer” (tell workers their email and hard drives are open to company inspection), Jul. 26, 1999.

Data collection, privacy issues, 2001: “Vast new surveillance powers for state AGs?” (Carnivore), Sept. 25-26, 2001; “Brace for data-disaster suits“, May 29; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit“, May 21; “Update: cookie lawsuit crumbles“, May 9. 2000: “‘Internet Usage Records Accessible Under FOI Laws’“, Nov. 14; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’“, Sept. 20; “Feds’ own cookie-pushing“, July 5; “Insurers fret over online privacy suits“, May 26-29; “Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed” (COPPA children’s privacy law), May 25; “Web-advertisers’ apocalypse?“, April 20; “Chat into the microphone, please” (SEC plans automated trawling of bulletin boards for stock-hyping comments), April 11; “Silicon siege” (Yahoo), April 7-9; “Another S&W thing” (state AGs vs. DoubleClick), March 27; “Yahoo stalked me!” (privacy suits), March 2; “Cookies, dunked” (DoubleClick), Feb. 2.

Home office regulation?: “OSHA & telecommuters: the long view“, April 7-9, 2000; “Update: OSHA in full retreat on home office issue“, Jan. 29-30; “OSHA at-home worker directive“, Jan. 8-9; “OSHA backs off on home-office regulation“, Jan. 6; “Beyond parody: ‘OSHA Covers At-Home Workers’“, Jan. 5, 2000.

Y2K: “Y2K roundup: poor things!” (much less litigation than expected), Jan. 21-23, 2000; “Litigation Bug Bites Into Democracy“, Jan. 13-14, 2000; “Y, oh Y2K?” (“sue and labor” insurance claims), Sept. 16, 1999 (& see updates Dec. 26-28, 2000 and Nov. 2-4, 2001: courts tend to rule against such claims).

Other Overlawyered.com commentaries:

“Intel sued in notorious county“, Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2002.

“Sic ’em on Segway“, Aug. 1, 2002; “Segway, the super-wheelchair and the FDA“, Dec. 12, 2001.

“‘Every Man a Cyber Crook’“, Feb. 6-7, 2002.

“Draconian hacker penalties?“, Sept. 28-30, 2001.

“‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001.

“Dotcom wreckage: sue ’em all“, Aug. 7-8, 2001.

“Brace for data-disaster suits” (hacker attacks, viruses), May 29, 2001; “Suing Nike for getting hacked“, July 12, 2000; “Deep pockets blameable for denial-of-service attacks?“, Feb. 26-27; “Antitrust obstacles to hacker defense“, Feb. 10-11, 2000.

“Anonymity takes a D.C. hit“, May 21, 2001.

“Techies fear Calif. anti-confidentiality bill“, May 15, 2001.

“Internet service disclaimers“, Dec. 13-14, 2000.

“‘Stock Options: A Gold Mine for Racial-Discrimination Suits?’“, Dec. 11-12, 2000; “Feds’ mission: target Silicon Valley for race complaints“, Feb. 29, 2000.

Labor law: “Digital serfs?“, Jan. 26-28, 2001; “Goodbye to gaming volunteers?“, Sept. 12, 2000 (& update Oct. 3); “Why rush that software project, anyway?” (California overtime law), March 29; “Microsoft temps can sue for stock options“, Jan. 11, 2000 (& see Feb. 17; letters, Dec. 20); “‘Click here to sue!’” (AOL volunteer suit), Sept. 7, 1999; “Click here to sue!” (employee misclassification suits), Aug. 19, 1999.

“Tax software verdict: pick a number” (Mississippi verdict; government contracting), Sept. 5, 2000.

“Class-action assault on eBay“, July 13, 2000 (update Nov. 22-23; class action certified).

“‘Parody of animal rights site told to close’“, July 3-4, 2000 (& Aug. 29-30, 2001).

“A Harvard call for selective rain” (some Internet regulation, not too much), July 3-4, 2000.

“AOL ‘pop-up’ class action” (ads said to be unfair), June 27, 2000.

“Harassment-law roundup” (Internet startups vulnerable), May 4, 2000; “Dot-coms as perfect defendants” (sex harassment suits), Jan. 17; “Harassment-law roundup” (Juno cases), Feb. 19-21, 2000..

“Silicon siege” (Ebay antitrust investigation, other cases; T.J. Rodgers warns against rapprochement with Washington), April 7-9, 2000.

“Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website“, March 31-April 2, 2000.

“Music stores sue Sony” (objecting to company-store hyperlinks included with CDs), Feb. 25, 2000.

“Silicon siege” (AOL 5.0 upgrade), April 7-9, 2000; “AOL upgrade’s sharp elbows“, Feb. 12-13, 2000.

“Green cards gather moss” (immigration delays), Feb. 4, 2000.

“Santa came late” (Toys-R-Us e-tailing shortfalls), Jan. 19, 2000; “Beware of market crashes” (online brokerages “probably” liable for computer outages), Nov. 26-28, 1999.

“Your fortune awaits in Internet law” (cybersquatting), Jan. 13-14, 2000; “Time to rent a clue” (domain name disputes), July 28, 1999.

“Rolling the dice, cont’d” (suits over online gambling), Dec. 7, 1999 (earlier report, Aug. 26).

“Mounties vs. your dish” (Canadian satellite law), Nov. 1, 1999.

“Founders’ view of encryption“, Oct. 29, 1999.

“In Houston, expensive menus” (junk faxes class action), Oct. 22, 1999 (update April 3, 2000: claims thrown out).

“Foam-rubber cow recall” (Gateway Corp. premium), Oct. 22, 1999.

“Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering” (suit deems website advocacy unlawful), Sept. 23, 1999.

“Effects of shareholder-suit reform“, Sept. 22, 1999.

“Our award-winning errors” (this site’s 404 message), Aug. 14-15, 1999.

“Weekend reading” (word counts on litigators’ briefs), Aug. 7-8, 1999.

“Censorship via (novel) lawsuits” (lawyers blame school shootings on video games, Internet sites), July 22, 1999.

“Thought for the day” (Cravath’s Robert Joffe on foreign companies’ unwillingness to let American law govern contracts), July 11, 1999.

Filed under: animal rights, antitrust, Canada, copyright, deep pocket, eBay, Houston, Italy, libel slander and defamation, Mississippi, Sweden, technology, trademarks