Cyberlaw Cases 2009-2010

Scope

 * This page seeks to list Cyberlaw-related court decisions issued between roughly August 1, 2009 - July 31, 2010.

Cases

 * Personal Jurisdiction for Online Activities and International Jurisdiction
 * Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 08-2406 (7th Cir. Apr. 8, 2010) (Applying Calder effects test to find that Illinois court had specific personal jurisdiction over defendants that allegedly used their websites or blast emails to the online dog-pedigree community to defame and tortiously generate a consumer boycott against plaintiff, knowing that he lived and operated his software business in Illinois and would be injured there).
 * Cossaboon v. Maine Medical Center, No. 09-1550 (1st Cir. Mar. 25, 2010) (Maine medical center's website did not sell or render services online and so despite some interactive features mere accessibility of site in New Hampshire did not create personal jurisdiction).
 * Riley v. Dozier Internet Law, PC, No. 09-1044 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2010) (upholding dismissal of declaratory judgment action seeking to establish right to operate gripe site with "-sucks" suffix where parallel state court action was ongoing).
 * Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, No. 07-15383, (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2009) (verbatim copying of Plaintiff's website located in the Northern District of California permitted venue there despite all Defendant's business activities being located in the Southern District of California).
 * Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Bird, 2010 WL 447759 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2010) (dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction as under the Calder Effects Test "mere knowledge of an individual's residence, combined with intentional posting of defamatory statements on the internet (which, taken together, makes it foreseeable an individual will be harmed in a certain forum location) does not amount to 'express aiming.'").
 * uBID, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., No. 09-2123 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009) (domain registrar not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois despite receiving 3.19% of its revenues from Illinois customers, among other Illinois contacts).
 * Royalty Network, Inc. v. Dishant.com, LLC, 638 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted where plaintiff merely alleged that website targeted Indian-American population and that 15% of said population lived in New York, without any other evidence of New York contacts).
 * Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Virgin Eyes, LLC., No. 08-8564 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2009) (motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted where Defendant maintained a largely passive, semi-functional website focused on providing information about sunglasses, Google Sponsored Ads, some of which originated in New York, did not give rise to personal jurisdiction).
 * Indecent Speech and Censorship on the Internet
 * United States v. Kilbride, Nos. 07-10528 & 07-10534 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009) ("[A] national community standard must be applied in regulating obscene speech on the Internet, including obscenity disseminated via email.").
 * Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., No. 09 C 1385 (N.D. Il. Oct. 20, 2009) (holding Craigslist is not liable for public nuisance by facilitating prostitution, citing 47 USC §230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act under which providers of interactive computer services are not liable for the dissemination of third-part content).
 * Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2009).
 * Immunity for Internet Intermediaries
 * Tiffany v. eBay, No. 08-3947 (2nd Cir. Apr. 1, 2010) (holding that eBay is not liable for infringing merchandise sold on website, where protections were put in place to prevent the conduct).
 * Nemet Chevrolet Ltd. v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc., No. 08-2097 (4th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009) (affirming the district court’s dismissal on 12(b)(6) grounds; the plaintiff auto dealer failed to show the business rating website was an information provider and not covered by CDA immunity).
 * FTC v. Accusearch Inc., No. 08-8003, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14480 (10th Cir. Jun. 29, 2009) (finding that a website that encourages third parties to provide illegal information to post on its site was an information provider and ineligible for CDA immunity).
 * Novins v. Cannon, 3:09-cv-05354 (D. N.J. Apr. 27, 2010) (230 immunized all manner of republishers in online defamation suit).
 * Collins v. Purdue University, 2010 WL 1250916 (N.D. Ind. Mar, 24, 2010) (newspaper could not be held liable for the online comments posted by third parties.).
 * Barnes v. Yahoo, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116274 (D. Ore. Dec. 8, 2009) (Denial of Yahoo's motion to dismiss on remand from 9th Circuit).
 * Doctor's Assoc., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, No. 06-01710 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2010) (whether Quiznos was responsible for creating or developing the contestant videos where it promoted a user-created video contest asking patrons to compare them to Subway is an issue of material fact, best submitted to the jury).
 * Blockowicz v. Williams, 09-03955 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009) (Injunction against poster of defamatory content could not be enforced against internet site hosting the content where site was not acting in concert with the enjoined party).
 * Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., No. 09-1385 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009) (dismissing on 47 U.S.C. 230 grounds the County Sheriff's lawsuit against Craigslist for inducing prostitution postings by creating the Craigslist's erotic services category).
 * Riggs v. MySpace, No. 09-03073 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 2009).
 * Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 09-116 (E.D. Wisc. Aug. 28, 2009) (plaintiff's failure to commercialize identity led to dismissal of her false endorsement Lanham Act claim and thus court relinquished jurisdiction over state law misappropriation and right of publicity claims, discussing but not reaching unsettled CDA issues).
 * Cornelius v. DeLuca, 2009 WL 2568044 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2009) (defendant website operator not liable for reviews posted by users even where conspiracy between users and defendant alleged).
 * Goddard v. Google, Inc., No. 08-02738 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2009) (plaintiff who clicked on AdWords ads and entered her cell phone number on fraudulent sites could not artfully plead around section 230 in effort to hold Google liable for fraudulent sites' conduct and amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice).
 * Scott P. v. Craigslist, Inc., No. CGC-10-496687 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jun. 2, 2010) (following Barnes, promissory estoppel claim survives 230 defense where defendant's representatives allegedly promised and failed to fix user-supplied content).
 * Phan v. Pham, 2010 WL 658244 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2010) (defendant who forwarded a defamatory email written by another was immune from liability for forwarding the email even with his own non-defamatory introductory commentary).
 * Shiamili v. Real Estate Group of New York, Inc., 2009 WL 4842470 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 17, 2009).
 * Finkel v. Facebook, No. 102578/09 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 15, 2009) (Facebook immune from defamation suit based on private Facebook group, even where Terms of Use allegedly grant Facebook an ownership interest in the alleged defamatory content).
 * Intellect Art Multimedia v. Milewski, No. 117024/08 (NY Sup. Ct. Sep. 15, 2009) (consumer complaint website not liable for opinions posted by disgruntled former student of study abroad program).
 * Liability for Posting Information Obtained by Others
 * Salmeron v. Enter. Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 08-3375 (7th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009) (affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's case as sanction for counsel's disclosure of document subject to oral agreement to treat as "attorneys' eyes only").
 * Copyright Liability for Internet Intermediaries
 * Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc., No. 07-2576 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2009) (webcasting service that provides users with individualized internet radio stations, the content of which can be affected by users' ratings, is not an "interactive service" and hence pays the statutory licensing fee set by the Copyright Royalty Board instead of individual license fees to copyright holders).
 * Digital Rights Management and Anti-circumvention
 * DVD Copy Control Assoc., Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc., No. H031631 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2009).
 * Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Assoc., Inc., No. 08-04548 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2009).
 * Internet Governance and Network Neutrality
 * Comcast v. FCC, No. 08-1291 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
 * Statutory and Common Law Claims to Protect Online Privacy
 * United States v. Amanuel, No. 06-1103 (2d Cir. Jul. 29, 2010) (law enforcement's failure to properly record electronic pager evidence not a constitutional violation yet testimonial uses barred for failure to comply with ECPA's sealing requirements. However, non-testimonial uses permitted, thus suppression of evidence from follow-on warrants vacated. Defendants may nonetheless be eligible for civil remedies for violative interception.).
 * Zheng v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 08-1068 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2009) (ECPA does not apply extra-territorially to disclosures by Yahoo!'s Chinese subsidiary of stored communications of plaintiffs that resulted in torture and imprisonment).
 * Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise, No. 09-004, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101866 (D. Ida. Nov. 2, 2009) (knowledge of employer monitoring of employee communications over its network could be imputed, not only to the employee but to employee's attorney, resulting in waiver of attorney-client privilege for messages sent by employee to attorney using employer-assigned e-mail account, and vice versa).
 * Fourth Amendment as Applied to Online Privacy 
 * City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332 (U.S. Jun. 17, 2010).
 * United States v. Hanson, No. 09-00946 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2010) (search of a laptop conducted six months after seizure at airport customs required a warrant even where earlier searches and discovery of contraband were supported by reasonable suspicion).
 * Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, No. 07-0109 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010) (finding that American lawyers for an Islamic foundation were illegally wiretapped by the federal government).
 * Rehberg v. Paulk, No. 09-11897 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2010).
 * Civil and Criminal Hacking (The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
 * Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union of North America, No. 09-13638 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2010).
 * Czech v. Wall Street on Demand, Inc., No. 09-180 (D. Minn. Dec. 8, 2009) (Sending of unsolicited text messages did not violate CFAA).
 * LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, No. 07-17116 (9th Cir. Sep. 15, 2009) (Where ex-employee emailed allegedly confidential information to himself before leaving, computer access was unauthorized only if contravening employer-placed limits, not once employee's mental state changed to competitor, rejecting contrary 7th Cir. precedent).
 * United States v. Drew, No. 08-00582 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2009).
 * Fink v. Time Warner Cable, No. 08-09628, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63708, 2009 WL 2207920 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 23, 2009) (dismissing CFAA claim based on Time Warner throttling p2p for failure to allege damage or loss).
 * Online Anonymous Speech and the First Amendment 
 * McVicker v. King, No. 09-436 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2010) (plaintiffs' asserted need to possibly impeach known witnesses did not outweigh the First Amendment rights of the anonymous commenters).
 * Sedersten v. Taylor, 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 114525 No. 09-3031 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 9. 2009) (Online commenter did not waive right to anonymity by agreeing to news website's privacy policy).
 * Rocky Mtn. Bank v. Google, Inc., No. 09-04385 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2009) (ordering Google to deactivate the account of and to disclose the identity of a gmail account holder that had been inadvertently emailed bank customer information).
 * In re Cohen, No. 100012/09 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Aug. 17, 2009).
 * Solers, Inc. v. Doe, No. 07-159 (D.C. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2009) (plaintiff seeking to identify an anonymous defendant must first submit sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact for all claim elements within its control).
 * Spam and Unfair or Deceptive Practices Online
 * Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen, No. 07-212 (D. Id. Jun. 29, 2010) (dismissing case where plaintiff was neither an "internet access provider" nor "adversely affected" under CAN-SPAM).
 * Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No. S169195 (Cal Jun. 21, 2010) (the transmission of "commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters" does not violate California's spam statute.).
 * e360 Insight, LLC v. The Spamhaus Project, (N.D. Ill. Jun. 11, 2010) (modifying e360's damage award down from $11.7 million to only $27,000).
 * Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., No. 05-05124 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2010) (awarding over $806,000 in attorney's fees to defendant where plaintiff acted unreasonably and "Having initiated over 20 similar actions, and sued over 20 defendants in this action alone, an award of attorneys' fees here is necessary to deter Asis and other plaintiffs hoping to profit under the CAN-SPAM Act from casting such a wide net").
 * Asis Internet Servs. v. Rausch, No. 08-03186 (N.D. Cal. May 03, 2010) (awarding $25 per violation of section 7704(a)(1) and $10 per violation of section 7704(a)(2), for statutory damages of $865,340.00, against non-responsive defendant and treble damages for the aggravating factors of harvesting emails and using automated scripts to create email accounts from which to send spam messages for total damages of $2,596,020.).
 * Asis Internet Services v. Member Source Media, LLC, No. 08-1321 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010) (header information claim preempted by CAN-SPAM, but deceptive subject line claim not preempted).
 * Asis Internet Services v. Subscriberbase Inc., No. 09-3505 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010) (Provisions of California's 17529.5(a) that prohibit misleading subject lines not preempted by CAN-SPAM).
 * Hoang v. Reunion.com, No. 08-3518 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010) (plaintiffs’ allegation that each plaintiff received from defendant one or more commercial e-mails containing "false and deceptive" statements is sufficient at the pleading stage to support each such plaintiff’s standing to bring a claim under § 17529.5)(a), which is not preempted by CAN-SPAM, and under which, a plaintiff need not allege reliance to state a claim).
 * Lozano v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., No. 09-6344 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2010) (text messages are "calls" for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act).
 * Balsam v. Trancos, Inc., No. 471791 (Cal Sup. Ct. Mar. 10, 2010) (following bench trial, individual plaintiff awarded $1,000 per spam email, totaling $7,000 under California Bus. and Prof. Code section 17529).
 * Kramer v. Bartok, No. 08-3841 (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 2010) (No secondary liability under Iowa spam statute, reversing $236 million damage award).
 * Abbas v. Selling Source, LLC, No. 09-3413 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2009) (SMS spam messages are "calls," under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act).
 * Asis Internet Services v. Subscriberbase Inc., No. 09-3503 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2009) (claims under California's anti-spam statute are not preempted by CAN-SPAM even where plaintiff does not plead reliance or damages).
 * Asis Internet Services v. Azoogle.com, Inc., Nos. 08-15979 and 08-17779 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 2009) (non-precedential) (cost of carrying spam emails over Plaintiff’s facilities, unrecorded employee time, and cost of spam filters does not constitute a harm as required by CAN-SPAM).
 * Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17518 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009) (individual plaintiff was neither an "internet access service" nor "adversely affected" under CAN-SPAM which also preempted his Washington state claims where plaintiff was neither misled nor deceived).
 * Virtual Property
 * Snap-on Business Solutions Inc. v. O'Neil & Assocs., Inc., No. 09-01547 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2010).
 * CRS Recovery, Inc. v. John Laxton, No. 08-17306 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2010) (remanding whether a domain name was abandoned, taken by theft, or fraud).
 * Jubber v. Search Market Direct Inc., No. 06-2299 (D. Utah, Aug. 19, 2009) (following, Margae, domain names are tangible property subject to conversion under Utah law).
 * Other Issues of Online Free Speech
 * Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Interactive Media Ent'mt and Gaming Ass'n, Inc., No. 2009-SC-000043-MR (Ky. Mar. 18, 2010).
 * Miller v. Mitchell, No. 09-2144 (3d Cir. Mar. 17, 2010) (affirming preliminary injunctive relief for minor threatened with prosecution for sexting if she failed to attend an education program).
 * Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Cordray, No. 2010-Ohio-149 (Ohio Jan. 27, 2010).