Featured Audio

February 23, 2012 Radio New Zealand
-US abuse of power in taking down Megaupload
-No such thing as criminal secondary copyright infringement
-The Prosecution is politically motivated

September 26, 2012 NewstalkNZ
-Illegal Gov spying on Kim Dotcom
-Case should be dismissed in the interests of justice
-Trail of Gov illegality
-Hollywood's involvement
-Unfair procedures 

Ira Rothken presentation at e-discovery seminar (excerpt)
- discussion of technical-legal factors to consider in determining whether e-discovery related data is "not reasonably accessible"
- More information can be found here 
 

Featured Videos



Photos

Search
Twitter Alerts
Investigation Tips
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    News Index
    Notice

    The information supplied on this web site is general in nature and should not be relied upon to make legal decisions. Interacting with e-mail, forms, or online forums on this web site does not constitute the creation of an attorney/client relationship. This web site is an advertisement for legal services. The examples of client cases and results discussed on this web site are not a guarantee of your outcome if we represent you in a particular case. 

    Login
    « In a Denial of Service outage, has Hollywood gone too far? | Main | Notice of Class Action Settlement in the Palm Treo 600 and 650 Case »
    Wednesday
    Apr022008

    Federal Judge citing CDA immunity throws out multiple claims against large dating site

    From an article in TheDartmouth: a Jane Doe plaintiff is suing in Federal Court an online dating site powered by Friendfinder related to a profile posted by a site user. The case arises out of an alleged feigned profile posted by a member that allegedly used her personal information next to a nude photo of another female. The profile was allegedly created by someone using the Dartmouth College network in 2005. The woman, who filed the suit under the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” claims the fictitious profile was posted for over a year before a friend brought it to her attention. A federal judge threw out five of the woman’s claims because internet sites are protected under a federal law known as the Communications Decency Act or CDA from liability for false postings by others, but allowed two to stand in an order handed down recently.

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend