Corporations that sell to consumers and are subject to consumer lawsuits commonly receive deposition demands for top executives. Corporations can frequently defeat these demands by showing that the executives did not participate or have control over the matter at issue. But a recent ruling from a federal trial court in California demonstrated how controlling social media content can help change that result, leaving a CEO as a defendant in a consumer class action alleging fraud and false advertising. (Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, No. 18-cv-01298-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2019).)
Susan Ross (US)
Fore! An Interesting Copyright and Trademark Default Judgment
On March 15, 2019, a federal trial court judge ruled in favor of famous golfer Jack Nicklaus’ company in a case that may be of interest to copyright and trademark owners. (Nicklaus Cos. LLC. v. Bryan Hepler Golf LLC, No. CV-18-01748-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz. March 15, 2019) (2019 WL 1227198).)
The case began in a way that is probably all too familiar with copyright owners: photos and videos owned by the plaintiff began appearing without permission the defendant’s website and were posted by the defendant on social media sites. The plaintiff sent a demand letter to the defendant, but the conduct did not stop.
Social media influencers and “scraping”
A federal trial court in California ruled in favor of a social media influencer’s copyright, trademark, interference with contract, and right of publicity class action lawsuit and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.…
Court-ordered social media disclosure
On August 30, 2018, a federal trial court in Texas ordered a defendant to include a disclaimer on certain social media posts as part of a preliminary injunction in a private litigation. (WorldVentures Marketing, LLC v. Rogers, 4:18-cv-00498 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018) (2018 WL 4169049)).
Trademarks, social media and lessons learned
On June 14, 2018, a federal trial court in New York issued a decision relating to a restaurant owner’s claim that the restaurant manager was using the owner’s trademarks on social media in violation of the federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act. The trial court denied the owner’s claim, in a ruling that provides some useful lessons to anyone who licenses a trademark. (Thousand Island Park Corp. v. Welser, 5:18-CV-117 (N.D.N.Y. June 14, 2018 (2018 WL 29803231)).)
Social media influencers – to “like” or not to “like?”
We have previously written on the FTC’s actions relating to social media influencer endorsements as well as the impact of animal endorsers, so we thought our readers would be interested in an Australian point of view on social media…
Social Media, Copyright & Photographs
Many social media sites and pages encourage people to post and share photos. This activity creates an issue where the owner of the photos has not given permission for that use, as a photographer alleged in a recent Fifth Circuit case Stross v. Redfin Corp., ___ Fed. Appx. ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 9, 2018) (2018 WL 1721749).
Social Media, Breach of Contract, and Specific Performance
On December 20, 2017, a federal court case demonstrated how some of his own negative social media postings prevented a plaintiff from receiving the contract remedies he sought. (Luten v. R&M Performance, Inc., Civ. No. 17-02723-JMC (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2017) (2017 WL 6508994).
Celebrity Endorsements, Cryptocurrencies, and Initial Coin Offerings
Our readers may recall that 2017 brought warning letters from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to celebrities who had posted some photos on Instagram and the FTC has recently taken action regarding some undisclosed “material connections.” A post on our…
Social Media Evidence and Pay-Per-View TV
We have previously written about social media posts and advertisements being used as evidence in a variety of legal cases (most recently, a post relating to emojis). A federal court in Pennsylvania recently used two social media advertisements—from a source the court could not identify—as evidence to support a finding of “willfulness” and to award 33% in enhanced damages. (J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ramsey, Civ. No. 17-1942 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2017) (2017 WL 4287200).)