breach of contract

Subscribe to breach of contract

On August 5, 2022, a federal trial court in Ohio ruled that the location of a social media influencer meant that jurisdiction was proper for a tortious interference with contract lawsuit brought against the influencer and alleged interferers, even though one of the defendants had only been to Ohio once, five years ago.  EHPLabs Research, LLC, v. Smith, No. 5:22CV0653 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 5, 2022) (2022 WL 3139604).  Although the matter is at the motion-to-dismiss stage, it provides some good takeaways for anyone entering into arrangements with social media influencers.

If you entered into a trademark settlement agreement where one party agreed not to use your registered trademark and then that party proceeded to use a very similar term on social media, is that a “violation” or a “material violation” of the agreement?  The answer is important because it determines whether you can get summary judgment on your breach of contract claim, according to a federal trial court in Florida.  (PayCargo, LLC v. CargoSprint LLC, Case No. 1:19-CV-22995-LOUIS (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2021 (2021 WL 2481867))

On June 17, 2020, the Southern District of New York issued an opinion and order in a complex matter between a social media gaming celebrity and a contract he signed with an esports and entertainment company. (Faze Clan, Inc., v. Tenney, 19-cv-7200 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2020) (2020 WL 3318209).)

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)).

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).