Dec 172016
 

Homeaway and Airbnb v. City of Santa Monica – arguing that Internet platforms handling specialized or transactional speech are entitled to Section 230 protection, even if they profit from those transactions consummating, and that the pre-emption clause of Section 230 prevents local authorities from imposing liability on platforms for handling speech that might be illegal under local law. [Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute | Brief in support of petition for rehearing on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute and the R Street Institute]

Woodhull Freedom Foundation, et al. v. United States, et al. – supporting the plaintiffs challenge of the 2019 law known as FOSTA, arguing that by making platforms fear so much new civil and criminal liability it causes speech to be unconstitutionally chilled. [Amicus brief on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute, Engine, and Reddit]

Daniel v. Armslist – arguing that Internet platforms with specialized commercial content are facilitating speech and therefore entitled to Section 230 protection and that the pre-emption clause of Section 230 prevents local authorities from imposing liability on platforms for handling speech. [Amicus brief in support of a petition for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Floor64/The Copia Institute | Amicus brief on the merits in support of Armslist on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute]

Fields v. Twitter – arguing that even in cases with unfortunate facts, platforms should not lose their statutory protection immunizing them for suit over how people use their systems. [Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute]

Montagna v. Nunis – arguing that for online speech to be protected, platforms need to be able to resist subpoenas demanding to unmask their users. [amicus brief on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute | letter urging depublication of negative precedent]

Hassell v. Bird – arguing that injunctions forcing non-party Internet intermediary platforms to delete content on their systems are contrary to federal law. [amicus letter on behalf of GitHub to California State Supreme Court in support of it hearing appeal]

Doe 14 v. Internet Brands – arguing that 47 U.S.C. Section 230 pre-empts state laws that attempt to impose liability on Internet platforms who are alleged to have breached a “duty to warn” users of their systems and services of others’ use of them. [Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc | reply to opposition to motion to file amicus brief]

Lenz v. Universal – arguing that, by only requiring DMCA takedown notice senders to have a “subjective” good faith belief that user-posted content infringes their copyrights, this weak standard invites illegitimate censorship of non-infringing speech in a way that the First Amendment does not permit. [Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of Public Knowledge and the Organization for Transformative Works in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc | brief in support of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the United States Supreme Court]

Multi-time Machine v. Amazon – written arguing that the doctrine of initial interest confusion in trademark law does not apply to search engine results. [Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of law professors in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc]

Smith v. Obama – written to argue that government surveillance programs targeting communications’ metadata violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. [Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ]

Jewel v. NSA – written to argue that the NSA program diverting a copy of all of AT&T’s internet traffic to the government violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. [District Court brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Ninth Circuit brief]

Garcia v. Google – arguing that statutory law precluded enjoining an Internet platform hosting user-generated content to remove that content. [Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute and the Organization for Transformative Works in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc | brief in support of granted rehearing]

Dec 172016
 

First and second round comments on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute in response to Senator Tillis’s inquiry on reforming the DMCA.

First and second round comments on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute to the FCC in response to the rulemaking petition of NTIA considering Section 230 reform.

First and second round comments on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute on the Copyright Office study on Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Comment on behalf of the R Street Institute in the Copyright Office studies on embedded software copyright and Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Twice quashed subpoenas seeking the identity of an anonymous blogger who had published protected speech and recovered fees under California Code of Civil Procedure 1987.2.

Brief by intervenor College Broadcasters, Inc. in Intercollegiate Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board arguing that per 17 U.S.C. Section 801(b)(7)(a) the Appointments Clause had no bearing on the Copyright Royalty Judges’ obligation to adopt a joint settlement as the rates and terms for the statutory license for webcasters.

Served as local counsel for the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic’s submission of amicus briefs in American Society for Testing and Materials et al. v. PublicResource.org and American Educational Research Association, et al. v. PublicResource.org cases defending the right to publicly post standards and model codes incorporated into law. Briefed on behalf of law professors at the district court and members of Congress at the D.C. Circuit.

Feb 102013
 

The First Hard Case: ‘Zeran v. AOL’ and What It Can Teach Us About Today’s Hard Cases
Law.com, November 10, 2017

Oracle v. Google decision threatens innovation
Al Jazeera USA, May 19, 2014

2014 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 69, p. 209, Winter 2014-2015

2013 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 69, p. 209, November 2013

2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, p. 289, November 2012

2011 State of the Law Regarding Website Owner Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 67, p. 305, November 2011

The State of the Law Regarding Website Owner Liability for User Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 66, p. 243, November 2010

Navigating the DMCA 
Internet Law for the Business Lawyer, 2nd Ed., ABA Publishing 2012

Copysense and Sensibility: How the Wiretap Act Forbids Universities from Using P2P Monitoring Tools 
Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, Vol. 12, p. 340, 2006

Jan 242012
 

Former Internet professional/webmaster now assisting clients with legal issues related to the digital age. Particular expertise advising, litigating, speaking, and writing on issues affecting Internet intermediaries, as well as experience with copyright/intellectual property, free speech, privacy, and other innovation policy matters. Continue reading »