Many believe that we are on the precipice of a deluge of litigation—both individual and multiparty/class action—concerning how an individual’s data is handled and the remedy, if any, if that data is misused or wrongfully disclosed. A case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court involves the intersection of the Internet and privacy laws and

The U.S. Supreme Court has ventured into the world of violent online speech. On June 1, in Elonis v. United States,1 the court overturned a defendant’s criminal conviction for communicating threats on Facebook. The court ruled that a mens rea standard of negligence was insufficient to allow the conviction to stand, but it did not

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires two forms of class notice. Rule 23(c)(2) requires notice to a potential class member that a class has been certified and substance of the class claims. Rule 23(e) requires notice that a settlement has been negotiated, which will require court approval, and the steps that each potential class

Nearly 15 years ago, Congress passed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”).[1] The ACPA amended the federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act by adding two new causes of action aimed at cybersquatting.[2] Under the ACPA, a person may be civilly liable “if … that person has a bad faith intent to profit from

Online technology, as this column frequently has noted, presents numerous challenges to attorneys during litigation,[1] while managing their firms and marketing their services,[2] and in trying to keep up with the newest legal developments and rulings.[3]  A recent decision in a case of first impression by Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court

On a nearly daily basis, each of us is asked or asks others to agree to be bound by “terms of use” or “terms of service” (TOS) as a condition of using an Internet website or obtaining goods or services offered through a website. Whether or not TOS are enforceable continues to be a question

In an ironic twist, China’s largest search engine, Baidu, has successfully argued that it was entitled to First Amendment protection in regard to its search engine results in the United States, which excluded statements by the plaintiffs, a group of New York residents who “advocated” for “the Democracy movement in China.”   In a question of

The assertion of a breach of contract claim against an attorney for excessive billing does not result in the waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to successor counsel

Waiver of the attorney-client privilege often arises in attorney-client disputes, where “the defendant asserts a claim that in fairness requires examination of protected communications… [t]he key to

All of the elements necessary for defamation claims seem to have coalesced on the Internet. There is the ease of posting content, including videos, on blogs and chat sites; the ubiquity of tweets, email, blogs and text messages; the pervasive abandonment of personal privacy; and the ability for almost anyone to quickly set up a

Generally, the law in New York is that “a determination fixing a defendant’s fees in a prior action brought by the defendant against the plaintiff for fees for the same legal services which the plaintiff alleges were negligently performed, necessarily determines that there was no legal malpractice.” Breslin Realty Development Corp. v. Shaw, 72 A.D.3d