Posts tagged Court
Google Defies Japanese Court Order Demanding Removal of Autocomplete Terms
Mar 27th
Despite an order from the Tokyo District Court, Google will not remove the autcomplete results an anonymous plaintiff feels disparage and defame him. Google U.S. will not be regulated by Japanese courts, they are reported to have said.
View full post on Search Engine Watch – Latest
Japan Court Asks Google To Shut Down Google Instant’s Autocomplete
Mar 26th
The Japan Times reports Google has been asked to turn off the auto-complete feature in Japan after being sued by a man for the auto-complete suggestions. The man’s case was adjudicated on March 19th. The man said he found out he lost his job several years ago and was rejected for new jobs due…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
Court Orders Google Autocomplete Changes: Japanese Man Defamed by Algorithm
Mar 26th
In a recent cyber-defamation case, a Japanese court ordered Google to suspend autocomplete searches queries related to a specific man’s name. The plaintiff has argued that the autocomplete results, which include suggestions related to crimes he did not commit, have caused him to lose a job and prevented him from finding gainful employment. Hiroyuki Tomita, [...]
Follow SEJ on Twitter @sejournal
View full post on Search Engine Journal
How to Throttle AT&T in Small Claims Court
Mar 2nd
AT&T’s worst nightmares may about to become a reality. After user Matthew Spaccarelli successfully sued the U.S. wireless carrier in a California small claims court over the speed throttling of his unlimited data plan, the doors were thrown open for thousands of users across the country to take similar actions. On Monday, five more users will file small claims suits against AT&T using Spaccarelli’s model.
The push to bring small claims cases against AT&T is being driven by a company called PublikDemand that says it strives to “give consumers voice against large corporations.” PublikDemand seems a little bit like ambulance chasers looking to make money against large corporations but the fact of the matter is that Spaccarelli created a blue print of success and followers are an inevitable consequence.
Sponsor
Research
PublikDemand has a blog post outlining how to sue AT&T over data throttling chargers. The first thing you are going to need is a signed copy of your AT&T contract. In the contract, find the applicable section that promises unlimited data speeds and make sure that it is highlighted for court when you file your claim.
The next step is to find your jurisdiction. PublikDemand recommends using this list to find the appropriate courthouse. After you file you are going to need to notify AT&T.
That will lead to a “discovery” process where each side of the suit is given pertinent information from the other side. That means you are going to need to hand over your research to AT&T and they must give you pertinent information (about cell towers and speeds in your area) at the same time.
It is a good idea to keep track of your data usage on a monthly basis whether or not you are planning on suing one of the largest mobile carriers in the world. You can track your data usage directly through AT&T by calling *3282# (*Data#) or by using applications like Norton Mobile Utilities Beta on an Android device. Before “clarifying” its policy yesterday, AT&T had been throttling the top 5% of users in an area that meant that many people were seeing their speeds throttled after about 2 GB of use. From my own personal experience, I had not been throttled by AT&T after 2.5 GB of use in the Boston area but different areas had different limits. AT&T will now throttle users after 3 GB on HSPA networks and 5 GB on LTE networks.
Next, research your data speeds. AT&T increased the speed of users that have been throttled in recent weeks but it is an interesting exercise to check your speeds anyway. PublikDemand recommends Speedtest or Glasnost for this purpose. Document your un-throttled speed and then your throttled speed. Spaccarelli went from, “0.13Mbps, versus a normal rate of 3.46Mbps” in his research.
As in any court case, the more prepared you are, the better chance you will have for success.
Prove Economic Damage
In any claims court, you are going to have to prove actual damage. This may be harder to do than you might imagine. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that their life, work or day-to-day financial activities were harmed because of the data throttling. Spaccarelli proved his point by pointing to the fact that he streamed Netflix through his phone (which he hooked up to a projector) and that the throttling caused him to not be able to use a service that he paid for. Streaming Spotify (at $9.99 a month for mobile devices) could also be an example of this.
There is danger in following Spaccarelli’s example though. Foremost, you are going to need to pay between $40 and $80 to file the claim and if you lose, that is a cost you are going to have to eat. Also, Spaccarelli is an extreme edge case user of AT&T’s network. He jailbroke his iPhone and used it as a data connection for his other devices along with the Netflix streaming. Really, nobody streams ALL of their movies and television on mobile devices.
Your case will likely not succeed if you have only been throttled once in your history. The best advice is to only proceed if you find that AT&T’s policy hurt you on a consistent basis. The company will also likely counter that it has plenty of options available for consumers on tiered data plans. AT&T wants nothing more than to move all of its users off the grandfathered legacy unlimited data plans, which makes up about 17% of all its subscribers. Yet, the premise of the suit is that you, as a consumer, signed a contract that promised unlimited data at speeds commensurate to “the fastest network in the country,” as AT&T advertises.
Pitfalls
Foremost, when you are bringing a case in small claims court, you are not allowed a lawyer. Sure, you can get legal advice but an outside source but the claim is yours alone. That means that to win a claims suit against a company like AT&T, you are going to need to be extremely well prepared. Spacarrelli researched his case for three months before filing it in Semi Valley, Calif. on Jan. 9, 2012. The flipside of that is that AT&T will not be allowed to send a team of lawyers after you. In Spaccarelli’s case he was opposed by an AT&T area sales manager.
The AT&T contract will be key. AT&T will contend that the contract is the binding agreement between the users and the carrier and in that contract there are provisions citing acceptable use and policies that protect the carrier from lawsuits. With yesterday’s clarification of the data throttling policy it is unclear how that new information will be viewed by a claims court on a case-by-case basis. There are no legal precedents set in claims court so each case is individual to others that have been filed. Last year the Supreme Court upheld a provision in AT&T’s contract that prohibits class-action lawsuits to be filed. So, you will be alone in your quest.
What do you think of PublikDemand’s blue print? Do they seem like ambulance chasers trying to squeeze money from a large corporation or an altruistic group of individuals fighting for the voice of the downtrodden consumer? Let us know in the comments.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Europe Refers ACTA to Court of Justice, Decision Could Nullify Enforcement
Feb 22nd
In a move ostensibly to confirm the European Parliament’s opinion that the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is above board – but perhaps also to alleviate its own suspicions – E.U. Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht has opted to refer the treaty to the Court of Justice (ECJ). While Comm. de Gucht expects his support of ACTA to be ratified, the Court’s decision could end up blocking enforcement of the treaty throughout the continent.
This even though 22 of the E.U.’s 27 member nations have already signed on to the treaty. Under the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon with which the E.U. was formed, the European Parliament must give consent to any treaty becoming law among its member nations. It will be holding public hearings on that very question next week.
Sponsor
“We are planning to ask Europe’s highest court to assess whether ACTA is incompatible – in any way – with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression and information or data protection and the right to property in case of intellectual property,” reads a statement from Comm. de Gucht this morning from Brussels. “I believe the European Commission has a responsibility to provide our parliamentary representatives and the public at large with the most detailed and accurate information available. So, a referral will allow for Europe’s top court to independently clarify the legality of this agreement.”
At issue is whether enforcement of the treaty would put Internet service providers in the uncomfortable (and, as far as Europe is concerned, illegal) position of providing back-channel access to suspected IP thieves and pirates to content rights holders, especially in the entertainment industry. Also, the treaty may be interpreted as compelling governments to enforce means to block infringing users from accessing the Internet, or similarly to block ISPs from enabling themselves to be accessed by them. The European Commission had already endorsed ACTA.
But the treaty had not always been negotiated in the public light. As a result, citizens who are only just now becoming aware of its existence are skeptical why the treaty wasn’t made subject to judicial review prior to the endorsement.
In the wake of the historic SOPA/PIPA defeat in the U.S., European lawmakers are eager to stay on the right side of public opinion. At the same time, they can’t exactly be seen as backtracking on their existing stance. While the E.C. was on record in opposition to ACTA’s being negotiated in secret, it did not put up much of a fuss after negotiated drafts were made public, and the most potentially offending parts were stricken.
One of those removed parts would have facilitated so-called “three strikes laws,” which would bar individuals’ access to the Internet after three intellectual property-related offenses. In a statement last week, E.C. Vice President Viviane Reding reminded Europeans that she had a hand not only in getting that provision removed, but with inserting in its place a provision that would ensure it never re-emerge elsewhere.
“In spite of significant political pressure, I instead supported – in the name of the European Commission and in close alliance with the European Parliament – the inclusion of an Internet freedom provision in the final text of this legislation,” stated Comm. Reding. “Under this provision, ‘three-strikes laws,’ which could cut off Internet access without a prior fair and impartial procedure or without effective and timely judicial review, will certainly not become part of European law. This situation can and must not be changed by the ACTA agreement.”
The E.C. is the upper house of the E.U. legislature; Parliament is the lower house. According to Parliament, now that the E.C. has consented to ACTA, it cannot make changes to it. But it can decline its consent, the effect of which would be to nullify its enforcement, even among those member nations that have already signed.
Leading the ACTA debate in Parliament is MEP David Martin (U.K.), who issued this statement earlier today: “We will wait for the ECJ ruling before we draw conclusions, but an open political debate in the European Parliament is also necessary on the measures foreseen by ACTA. We must guarantee a good balance between intellectual property rights, which are fundamental for the European economy and job creation, and individual freedoms.”
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
French Court Fines Google $660,000 Because Google Maps Is Free
Feb 1st
Google faces a $660,000 fine after a French court ruling that the company is abusing its dominant position in mapping by making Google Maps free. According to The Economic Times, the French commercial court “upheld an unfair competition complaint lodged by Bottin Cartographes against Google…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
Supreme Court Offers No Help To Schools Looking To Clarify Online Speech Policies
Jan 18th
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a case this term that could have clarified the authority schools have over students and their use of social media when they’re not in school.
On Tuesday, the court said it would not hear appeals on the suspension of a West Virginia student who ridiculed another student or a lower court’s decision to overturn a Pennsylvania school district’s suspension of a student who posted comments about her principal online. Officials on both sides of the issue saw the high court’s decision as a setback, as it means it will be at least another year before the Supreme Court offers clarity to an issue that has divided lower courts.
A ruling by the Supreme Court on any of the cases it was asked to hear may have also updated a Vietnam-era free speech ruling that has become dated in the Internet age. The 1969 ruling applied to on-campus speech that would “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” More recently, however, the ruling in Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District has been interpreted to give schools authority over comments students make on Facebook, Twitter, blogs and other social networks, regardless of the student’s physical location when the comments are posted.
Sponsor
Lower courts have been ambiguous at best on trying to settle rules on what online speech schools can and cannot regulate. The 2011 case the Supreme Court was asked to review comes from the 3rd District Court of Appeals and involves a decision in favor of a student who had been suspended by a Pennsylvania School District for posting critical comments about her principal online.
One year earlier, however, the same court upheld the suspension of a student who had created a fake MySpace profile insinuating a principal was a sex addict and a pedophile.
Both the lower court and the National School Boards Association have asked the court to review the case, and consider abandoning Tinker, which is no longer relevant in the Internet age.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Lamar Smith Countermoves, Will Remove Court Order Provision from SOPA
Jan 13th
In a move that could enable some form of anti-piracy legislation to pass this Congressional term, Rep. Lamar Smith (R – Texas), principal author of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), said this evening he will make adjustments in the bill to coincide with changes advised by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D – Vt.) yesterday to the Senate counterpart bill, PROTECT-IP.
In his statement, Rep. Smith says the remaining portion of SOPA, still due for a vote on January 24, will still contain a provision that compels (though not directly forces) payment network providers to act in good faith to refrain from handling payment transactions for IP trafficking sites.
Sponsor
The complete statement from Rep. Smith’s office is as follows:
After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision. We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers.Current law protects the rights of American innovators by prohibiting the illegal sale and distribution of their products by domestic websites. But there is no equivalent protection for American companies from foreign online criminals who steal and sell American goods to consumers around the world. Congress must address the widespread problem of online theft of America’s technology and products from foreign thieves.
The Stop Online Piracy Act cuts off the flow of revenue to these foreign illegal sites and makes it harder for online criminals to market and distribute illegal products to U.S. consumers. The bill maintains provisions that ‘follow the money’ and cut off the main sources of revenue to foreign illegal sites. It also continues to protect consumers from being directed to foreign illegal websites by search engines. And it provides innovators with a way to bring claims against foreign illegal sites that steal and sell their technology, products and intellectual property.
American intellectual property industries provide 19 million high-paying jobs and account for more than 60 percent of U.S. exports. Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while some of America’s most profitable and productive industries are under attack. The Stop Online Piracy Act protects the products and jobs that rightly belong to American innovators.
The way the Senate’s PROTECT-IP act is currently structured, payment network providers would be granted immunity from prosecution for suspending service to the owner of a domain name listed in a court order. Sen. Leahy’s withdrawal of the court order provision yesterday makes it difficult to contemplate how this section of the Senate bill would be resolved.
By contrast, the way the House’s SOPA is structured, payment network providers would be granted immunity from prosecution simply for suspending service to “a foreign infringing site or… an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” SOPA does not specify whether a court must first make that determination. At any rate, after Rep. Smith removes the court order provision, the remaining immunity grant provision could conceivably stand without significant revision.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Leahy Recommends Setting Aside Controversial PIPA Court Provision
Jan 12th
In a statement from his office Thursday evening, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D – Vt.), who co-authored the current version of the PROTECT-IP bill (also known as PIPA) along with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), said he is now willing to set aside the most controversial aspect of the anti-piracy legislation currently under discussion. Sen. Leahy now says that the provision that would empower courts to order service providers to block access to foreign sites under investigation for suspected illicit trafficking, should be set aside for further study.
Leahy credits his Vermont constituents for giving him insight into the issue, as well as service providers, whom he admits stand in opposition to the provision.
Sponsor
The bill is still scheduled for a floor vote January 24, though the statement from Leahy’s office this evening indicates that the legislation under consideration may have the controversial court order provision stricken.
The section with Leahy will recommend be set aside grants the court the ability to issue an injunction or restraining order against a domain name. In the act of carrying out that injunction, DNS servers may be issued court orders compelling them to “take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address,” granted that such measures would not force them to redesign their networks.
The House version of the legislation, the Stop Online Piracy Act, remains under consideration and, as of now, continues to contain the counterpart to the court order provision. Earlier today, its principal author, Rep. Lamar Smith (R – Texas), vowed to press forward with the SOPA legislation as it stood, but that statement was made prior to Leahy’s.
Any final legislation passing Congress would need to be a reconciliation between both bills, which may now be more difficult if SOPA were to pass the House with the court order provision intact.
The senator broke the news of his decision in a response to a question on Vermont Public Radio this morning.
According to VPR reporter Patti Daniels, Leahy said, “I’m going to set aside these Domain Name provisions. That we’ll hold back on, because I’ve listened to some of the concerns on those. I think there [are] easy answers to it, but let’s set it aside, let’s spend a year or so studying that part.”
The full text of Sen. Leahy’s statement follows:
The PROTECT IP Act provides new tools for law enforcement to combat rogue websites that operate outside our borders but target American consumers with stolen American property and counterfeits. One of those tools enables law enforcement to secure a court order asking Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to use the Domain Name System to prevent consumer access to foreign rogue websites. This provision was drafted in response to concerns that law enforcement has remedies it can take against domestic websites, but does not currently have the power to stop foreign rogue websites. I worked closely with the ISPs in drafting this provision to ensure they were comfortable with how it would work, and I appreciate their support.The process in drafting the legislation has always been an open one in which we have heard from all third parties, and have worked to address as many outstanding concerns as possible. It is through this process that we have gained the support of the majority of third parties who will be asked to take action under the legislation, as well as a bipartisan group of 40 cosponsors in the Senate.
It is also through this process that I and the bill’s cosponsors have continued to hear concerns about the Domain Name provision from engineers, human rights groups, and others. I have also heard from a number of Vermonters on this important issue. I remain confident that the ISPs – including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs – would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. Nonetheless, this is in fact a highly technical issue, and I am prepared to recommend we give it more study before implementing it.
As I prepare a managers’ amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property. I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it when websites operating overseas are stealing American property, threatening the safety and security of American consumers. However, the bill remains a strong and balanced approach to protecting intellectual property through a no-fault, no-liability system that leverages the most relevant players in the Internet ecosystem.
In a response this evening, Sen. Ron Wyden (D – Ore.), the co-author of the competing Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) Act, vowed he would continue his plan to block whatever parts of the Leahy-Hatch bill would try to reach the floor for a vote.
“It is welcome news that proponents of PIPA are finally accepting that it contains major flaws,” stated Sen. Wyden. “Unfortunately, this announcement to study the DNS provision does not eliminate the clearly identified threat to net security contained within this bill. Beyond the DNS provisions, the bill still establishes a censorship regime that threatens speech, innovation, and the future of the American economy. I remain firm in my intent to block consideration of the PIPA bill until these issues are addressed and I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that whatever legislative course is taken, that it is fully transparent, fully understood and fully considered by all those who value the Internet.”
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Free Speech Battle In India: Google, Facebook Summoned By Court Over “Inflammatory Images”
Dec 23rd
According to a report from Chinese news agency Xinhua, a judge in India has ordered a broad range of online companies, including Google, Facebook and Yahoo, to “delete ‘inflammatory’ images of religious figures” from their sites. Though not identified in news reports the…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
