Law Commons^™

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.

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 In Opposition, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Daniel W. Weininger

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman, Daniel Weininger

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. …

Bad Actors: Authenticity, Inauthenticity, Speech, And Capitalism, Sarah C. Haan

Scholarly Articles

“Authenticity” has evolved into an important value that guides social media companies’ regulation of online speech. It is enforced through rules and practices that include real-name policies, Terms of Service requiring users to present only accurate information about themselves, community guidelines that prohibit “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” verification practices, product features, and more.

This Article critically examines authenticity regulation by the social media industry, including companies’ claims that authenticity is a moral virtue, an expressive value, and a pragmatic necessity for online communication. It explains how authenticity regulation provides economic value to companies engaged in “information capitalism,” “data capitalism,” and “surveillance …

Privacy And Legal Automation: The Dmca As A Case Study, Jonathon Penney

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, computing capacity, and big data analytics are creating exciting new possibilities for legal automation. At the same time, these changes pose serious risks for civil liberties and other societal interests. Yet, existing scholarship is narrow, leaving uncertainty on a range of issues, including a glaring lack of systematic empirical work as to how legal automation may impact people’s privacy and freedom. This article addresses this gap with an original empirical analysis of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which today sits at the forefront of algorithmic law due to its automated enforcement of copyright …

The “Sovereigns Of Cyberspace” And State Action: The First Amendment’S Application (Or Lack Thereof) To Third-Party Platforms, Jonathan Peters

Scholarly Works

Many scholars have commented that the state action doctrine forecloses use of the First Amendment to constrain the policies and practices of online service providers. But few have comprehensively studied this issue, and the seminal article exploring “[c]yberspace and the [s]tate [a]ction [d]ebate” is fifteen years old, published before the U.S. Supreme Court reformulated the federal approach to state action. It is important to give the state action doctrine regular scholarly attention, not least because it is increasingly clear that “the private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression.” It is critical to understand whether the First …

Protecting One's Own Privacy In A Big Data Economy, Anita L. Allen

All Faculty Scholarship

Big Data is the vast quantities of information amenable to large-scale collection, storage, and analysis. Using such data, companies and researchers can deploy complex algorithms and artificial intelligence technologies to reveal otherwise unascertained patterns, links, behaviors, trends, identities, and practical knowledge. The information that comprises Big Data arises from government and business practices, consumer transactions, and the digital applications sometimes referred to as the “Internet of Things.” Individuals invisibly contribute to Big Data whenever they live digital lifestyles or otherwise participate in the digital economy, such as when they shop with a credit card, get treated at a hospital, apply …

At The Fontier Of The Younger Doctrine: Reflections On Google V. Hood, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

On December 19, 2014, long-simmering tensions between Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and the search engine giant Google boiled over into federal court when Google filed suit against the Attorney General to enjoin him from bringing civil or criminal charges against it for alleged violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. Hood had been investigating and threatening legal action against Google for over a year for its alleged failure to do enough to prevent its search engine, advertisements, and YouTube website from facilitating public access to illegal, dangerous, or copyright protected goods. The case has garnered a great deal of …

Speech Engines, James Grimmelmann

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Academic and regulatory debates about Google are dominated by two opposing theories of what search engines are and how law should treat them. Some describe search engines as passive, neutral conduits for websites’ speech; others describe them as active, opinionated editors: speakers in their own right. The conduit and editor theories give dramatically different policy prescriptions in areas ranging from antitrust to copyright. But they both systematically discount search users’ agency, regarding users merely as passive audiences.

A better theory is that search engines are not primarily conduits or editors, but advisors. They help users achieve their diverse and individualized …

Trial By Google: Judicial Notice In The Information Age, Andrew Ferguson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This Article presents a theory of judicial notice for the information age. It argues that the ease of accessing factual data on the Internet allows judges and litigants to expand the use of judicial notice in ways that raise significant concerns about admissibility, reliability, and fair process. State and federal courts are already applying the surprisingly pliant judicial notice rules to bring websites ranging from Google Maps to Wikipedia into the courtroom, and these decisions will only increase in frequency in coming years. This rapidly emerging judicial phenomenon is notable for its ad hoc and conclusory nature – attributes that …

Speech Engines, James Grimmelmann

Faculty Scholarship

Academic and regulatory debates about Google are dominated by two opposing theories of what search engines are and how law should treat them. Some describe search engines as passive, neutral conduits for websites’ speech; others describe them as active, opinionated editors: speakers in their own right. The conduit and editor theories give dramatically different policy prescriptions in areas ranging from antitrust to copyright. But they both systematically discount search users’ agency, regarding users merely as passive audiences.

A better theory is that search engines are not primarily conduits or editors, but advisors. They help users achieve their diverse and individualized …

After Search Neutrality: Drawing A Line Between Promotion And Demotion, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

The Federal Trade Commission's (“FTC” or “the commission”) January 3, 2013 decision to close its longstanding investigation of Google1 brings to a close a flurry of discussion over the possibility that Google could become subject to a “search neutrality” principle in the United States. Although the Commission found against Google on several grounds, it rejected petitions from Google's critics to create a search neutrality principle as a matter of antitrust law. This essay briefly analyzes what remains of U.S. antitrust scrutiny of Internet search bias after the Google settlement. In particular, it suggests that a sensible line can be drawn …

Antibiotic Resistance, Jessica D. Litman

Articles

Ten years ago, when I wrote War Stories,' copyright lawyers were fighting over the question whether unlicensed personal, noncommercial copying, performance or display would be deemed copyright infringement. I described three strategies that lawyers for book publishers, record labels, and movie studios had deployed to try to assure that the question was answered the way they wanted it to be. First, copyright owners were labeling all unlicensed uses as "piracy" on the ground that any unlicensed use might undermine copyright owners' control. That epithet helped to obscure the difference between unlicensed uses that invaded defined statutory exclusive rights and other …

The Google Conundrum: Perpetrator Or Facilitator On The Net? - Forging A Fair Copyright Framework Of Rights, Liability And Responsibility In Response To Search Engine 2.0 - Part Ii: The Google Books Search Project, Warren B. Chik

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Is Google in its quest for search engine optimization through the creation of new technologies, which not only improves its search algorithms but also refines its search functions for users, doing it in a manner that makes it a perpetrator of primary copyright infringement or an invaluable facilitator for Internet functionality? How should the balance of interests in the treatment of creative works be recalibrated in the face of changes in search engine technology and operations, and the disputes that have arisen within the last decade in the context of the digital age and its needs? Using Google as a …

The Google Conundrum: Perpetrator Or Facilitator On The Net? - Forging A Fair Copyright Framework Of Rights, Liability And Responsibility In Response To Search Engine 2.0 - Part I: The Google Images Search Engine, Warren B. Chik

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Is Google in its quest for search engine optimization through the creation of new technologies, which not only improves its search algorithms but also refines its search functions for users, doing it in a manner that makes it a perpetrator of primary copyright infringement or an invaluable facilitator for Internet functionality? How should the balance of interests in the treatment of creative works be recalibrated in the face of changes in search engine technology and operations, and the disputes that have arisen within the last decade in the context of the digital age and its needs? Using Google as a …

Dominant Search Engines: An Essential Cultural & Political Facility, Frank Pasquale

Faculty Scholarship

When American lawyers talk about "essential facilities," they are usually referring to antitrust doctrine that has required certain platforms to provide access on fair and nondiscriminatory terms to all comers. Some have recently characterized Google as an essential facility. Antitrust law may shape the search engine industry in positive ways. However, scholars and activists must move beyond the crabbed vocabulary of competition policy to develop a richer normative critique of search engine dominance.

In this chapter, I sketch a new concept of "essential cultural and political facility," which can help policymakers recognize and address situations where a bottleneck has become …

Make Your Life Easier: Free Online Productivity Tools And Resources, Kincaid C. Brown

Law Librarian Scholarship

CiteGenie works primarily for caselaw and Internet resource research but is experimenting with the ability to add citations for statutes and regulations. CiteGenie provides a number of formatting options and allows you to choose citation rules for a particular state, use parallel citations, remove star-pagination marks from quoted texts, and personalize abbreviations. This tool is easy to use; when researching in Firefox, select CiteGenie from the right-click menu and a pop-up displays the copied text and citation to be pasted.

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Response To Google's Objections To Evidence And Motion To Strike, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xv, Tab 52 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xvi, Tab 53 - Declaration Of Henry Lien In Support Of Google's Reply Memorandum (Counsel For Google), Henry Lien

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xix, Tab 56 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Spaziano Declaration In Opposition To Google's Motion, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Declaration Of Henry Lien (Counsel For Google), Henry Lien

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xi, Tab 48 - Declaration Of Kris Brewer (Associate Discovery Counsel For Google), Kris Brewer

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Bill Lloyd Declaration (Google Ad Support Team Lead), Bill Lloyd

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 42 - Declaration Of Cheryl Galvin, Cheryl Galvin

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 76 - Wojcicki Deposition (Google Vice-President Product Management), Susan Wojcicki

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?