This text appeared in The Intellectual Property Strategist, an ALM/Legislation Journal Newsletters publication that gives a sensible supply of each enterprise and litigation techniques within the fast-changing space of mental property regulation, together with litigating IP rights, patent damages, venue and infringement points, inter partes evaluation, emblems on social media – and extra.
America Supreme Courtroom didn’t destroy the Web on Could 18, 2023. That day, the Courtroom launched its opinions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 143 S. Ct. 1191 (2023) (per curiam), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 143 S. Ct. 1206 (2023). In these companion instances from the Ninth Circuit, relations of ISIS victims sued massive tech corporations underneath the Justice In opposition to Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) for allegedly aiding and abetting overseas terrorists by offering them with platforms “for spreading extremist propaganda, elevating funds, and attracting new recruits.” Grievance ¶ 12, Taamneh v. Twitter, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-4107 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017). Defendants in each instances asserted defenses underneath 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Part 230). Part 230, typically talking, shields on-line platforms from legal responsibility for in any other case actionable content material customers put up on their websites. After the Supreme Courtroom agreed to listen to the instances on Oct. 3, 2022, fear shortly unfold that the Courtroom “might break the Web” by weakening this legal responsibility protect. Isaac Chotiner, “Two Supreme Court Cases that Could Break the Internet,” New Yorker (Jan. 25, 2023). The Web remains to be standing, however the Supreme Courtroom’s reasoning within the 583-word Gonzalez opinion stays perplexing. Gonzalez and Taamneh are a narrative about how the Supreme Courtroom “saved” the Web from itself, and the Courtroom wanted each instances to take action.
