Law Commons^™

The Digital Person: Law Enforcement & The Purchase Of Data In A Post Carpenter Age, Jay E. Town

Belmont Law Review

It once was reasonable to expect courts to rule that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, even in the digital era, because nearly all of the information streamed from mobile devices, applications, and browsers is voluntarily shared per the terms of the platforms', websites', and applications' agreements. But then the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Carpenter v. United States. Scholars and jurists alike opined, to some degree of hyperbole, on the enormity of the impact this holding would have on the Fourth Amendment going forward. Defense counsel and privacy advocates regaled the case as a …

Consumer Welfare Of The Future: Harm To Innovation As An Antitrust Injury, Brenton Gutkowski

San Diego Law Review

This Comment will discuss pertinent background information regarding American antitrust jurisprudence. Second, this Comment will define Big Tech and discuss its rise to a dominant market position in the American economy. Third, this Comment will break down the District of Columbia District Court’s decision in United States v. Microsoft Corp. and will discuss how the courts’ reasoning can establish a new standard of harm to innovation under the consumer welfare standard. Fourth, this Comment will discuss two different situations in which the harm to innovation standard works to espouse antitrust goals. In summation, this Comment will address objections to …

Law Library Blog (April 2023): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

The Microsoft Litigation’S Lessons For United States V. Google, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page

University of Miami Law Review

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, search advertising, internet advertising technologies, and app distribution on Android phones. In this Article, we focus on the DOJ’s claims that Google has used contracts with tech firms that distribute Google’s search services in order to exclude rival search providers and thus to monopolize the markets for search and search advertising—the two sides of Google’s search platform. The primary mechanisms of exclusion, according to the DOJ, are the many contracts Google has used to secure its …

Reply Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Brief For Respondents, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Robert J. Tolchin

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Fall 2023 Supplement To Brauneis & Schechter, Copyright: A Contemporary Approach, Robert Brauneis, Roger Schechter

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Fall 2023 Supplement is the product of our effort to capture important developments in copyright law since the publication of the second edition of Copyright: A Contemporary Approach. It includes three Supreme Court decisions as principal cases: the fair use cases of Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (p. 23) and Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (p. 41) and the 2020 decision about copyright protection for state statutes, Georgia v. Public.Resources.Org (p. 74).. (Because there are now so many Supreme Court fair use cases to cover, this supplement also includes a note on Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation …

International Tax Reform: Who Gets A Seat At The Table?, Assaf Harpaz

Scholarly Works

The international tax framework relies on early-twentieth-century principles and favors the interests of the Global North, which created it. It bases taxing rights on a corporation’s physical presence and mostly allocates profits to the country of residence. Moreover, it has been slow to adapt to modern business practices. In the digital economy, companies shift profits with relative ease and often do not require a physical presence in the location of their consumers. International taxation needs reform, but leading proposals do not reflect meaningful input from the Global South and are unlikely to serve the needs of developing countries.

In 2021, …

Google Llc V. Oracle America, Inc., Elizabeth Spica

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.