Companies—especially those based outside the U.S.—sometimes ask why it is so difficult to bring a lawsuit based on something posted on social media. A recent federal court case from California can help show how courts view these actions. Prehired, LLC, v. Provins, No. 2:22-cv-00384-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. April 12, 2022) (2022 WL 1093237).
Frogbikes Limited (“Frogbikes”), a British bicycle manufacturer, has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia claiming that defendant Frog Scooters, Inc. (“Frog Scooters”) has infringed Frogbikes’ “FROG” trademarks (the “FROG Marks”) with the use of the term “frog” and its stylized “Frog” mark in connection with its scooter rental business. The dispute arises from Frog Scooters’ geographic expansion from Europe to the U.S., where Frogbikes alleges it was already conducting business under the FROG Marks.
In December 2021, our post Federal Reserve and social media, highlighted sections of the Federal Reserve Financial Stability Report which demonstrated the Fed’s focus on the role of social media and retail investors in equity market volatility. In March 2022, the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) followed suit, and also turned their attention to the role of social media and retail investors. The IOSCO Retail Market Conduct Task Force Consultation Report aimed to set out a toolkit of proposed policy and enforcement measures with guidance to help mitigate the potential risks of retail investor harm posed by online and cross-border marketing and distribution, and digital offerings. The findings of the report demonstrate both the global nature and the importance of these issues.
In June of 2021, Canada’s Parliament passed Bill C-10: An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-10). Bill C-10 was drafted in response to recommendations made by the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel suggesting reforms of Canada’s broadcasting system to account for digital media. Although Bill C-10 received its third reading, the Senate did not provide approval before Parliament’s dissolution following the 2021 snap election.
In February of this year, the Federal Government revived the contents of Bill C-10, by introducing Bill C-11: the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11, or the Act).
In December 2021, our post Increased Likelihood of US Social Media Regulation discussed the rising momentum to reform Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which is often used to protect social media giants from liability for content posted on their platforms by third parties. Recently, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas expressed displeasure over the lack of guidance surrounding Section 230’s scope and hinted that reform may be close.
The UK Government has added two new duties to the proposed Online Safety Bill (the Bill) that are aimed at protecting people against anonymous online abuse. These measures would give users of “main social media firms” more control over
Creators of fraudulent crypto assets beware. A recent court decision supported investors, creators and marketers of legitimate crypto assets, and the integrity of the crypto asset market as a whole.
While the creator of BitConnect remains at large and is facing his own indictment for his role in the scheme that allegedly defrauded investors of $2.4 Billion, this case focuses on the promoters and marketers of a commodity known as BitConnect Coin.
In December 2021, our post “Increased likelihood of US social media regulation” discussed Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen and her call to hold social media platforms accountable for the potentially dangerous content that appears on their sites.
In February 2022, Haugen once again flagged Facebook’s algorithms as potentially harmful, but this time Haugen was speaking outside of the United States, to the Australian Parliament’s Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety (the “Committee”).
The metaverse is the answer to escaping your couch without actually leaving it to do whatever you want in a paralleled virtual universe – hangout with friends, drive race cars, shop designer brands, buy digital land, or do just about anything else you can imagine. The metaverse may seem far-fetched, but so did smart phones when everyone was talking on their corded landlines not too long ago.
The metaverse parallels social media with concepts of engagement and world-wide connection, for both users and business. Both spaces allow for users and businesses to expand outside of their geographical area and establish a strong online presence. However, social media and the metaverse are not the same thing. Our current interactions on social media are engaged on a ‘push’ basis. Information, such as comments and likes, are pushed to us with notifications. We are also ‘pushed’ video and image ads. However, the metaverse will be less ‘push’ information and more of an embodied interaction with information and our environment. The metaverse will offer an immersive digital world that feels physical and tangible in nature. Interacting with metaverse has the opportunity to shift the internet in a new direction and pose new intellectual property rights for developers, contributors, and users.
In December 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that Nikola Corporation (“Nikola”) agreed to pay $125 million to settle charges that the company allegedly defrauded investors and misled them about its products, technical advancements, and commercial prospects. Nikola did not admit or deny the SEC’s findings. Earlier that same year, the SEC filed against Nikola’s founder and former CEO, Trever R. Milton, for allegedly disseminating false and misleading information about Nikola’s products and technical accomplishments by communicating with investors through social media.