Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Facebook Inc. won an appeal on Oct. 30 over the company's use of minors' names and likenesses in its “social ads” program.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling tossing out claims brought on behalf of minor Facebook users in'a three-page unpublished memorandum.
Lawyers at Korein Tillery in St. Louis sued Facebook in 2011 claiming that various state laws barred users under 18 from consenting to the site's terms of service. Those terms included a provision giving the company the right to use their names and likenesses in ads.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the suit last year finding that the plaintiffs had legitimately granted Facebook the right to use their names and pictures in exchange for the benefits gained from using the site.
In the decision, Circuit Judges William Fletcher, Marsha Berzon, and Carlos Bea rejected plaintiffs' contention that they had disavowed their earlier approval of Facebook's terms of service by suing the company.
“By continuing to use facebook.com after bringing their action, plaintiffs manifested an intention not to disaffirm the contract,” they wrote.
Korein Tillery's Aaron Zigler, who handled arguments at the Ninth Circuit for the plaintiffs last month, didn't immediately respond to messages Friday afternoon.
Munger, Tolles & Olson's Daniel Levin, who argued for Facebook, wasn't immediately available. A Facebook spokesperson said the company is “pleased with the ruling.”
The Ninth Circuit panel that handed down the decision also heard'a challenge to Facebook's $20 million deal'to settle claims related to its “sponsored stories” program. That appeal remains pending.
'
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling tossing out claims brought on behalf of minor Facebook users in'a three-page unpublished memorandum.
Lawyers at
U.S. District Judge
In the decision, Circuit Judges William Fletcher, Marsha Berzon, and Carlos Bea rejected plaintiffs' contention that they had disavowed their earlier approval of Facebook's terms of service by suing the company.
“By continuing to use facebook.com after bringing their action, plaintiffs manifested an intention not to disaffirm the contract,” they wrote.
The Ninth Circuit panel that handed down the decision also heard'a challenge to Facebook's $20 million deal'to settle claims related to its “sponsored stories” program. That appeal remains pending.
'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.