Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between Stanley Dickson, owner of several businesses, and Conlan Abu, a company that purchased the assets of one of Dickson's businesses, the Epicurean Group. After the sale, the relationship between the parties soured and they attempted to unwind the deal. During this period, Dickson's IT administrator, John Massey, preserved some emails from the accounts associated with the Epicurean Group for potential litigation. Conlan Abu filed a lawsuit alleging that Dickson and his accounting firm violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act by accessing these emails.The district court had previously ruled in favor of Dickson and his associates. It found that Massey, as the IT administrator, did not intentionally act without authorization or exceed his authorization when he accessed the email accounts using his own credentials. The court also found that Massey did not intentionally exceed his authorization under the Act, as he had no reason to know that his conduct was unauthorized.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Massey did not intentionally access the emails without authorization or exceed his authorization under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The court also found that Massey did not intentionally exceed his authorization under the Stored Communications Act. The court concluded that Conlan Abu failed to show that Massey acted without authorization or intentionally exceeded his authorization, and therefore could not recover under either Act. View "Conlan Abu v. Dickson" on Justia Law

In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. The laws curtailed the platforms' ability to engage in content moderation and required them to provide reasons to a user if they removed or altered her posts. NetChoice LLC, a trade association whose members include Facebook and YouTube, brought First Amendment challenges against the two laws. District courts in both states entered preliminary injunctions.The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, holding that the state's restrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny. The court concluded that the content-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed and reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. The court held that the platforms’ content-moderation activities are “not speech” at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgments and remanded the cases, stating that neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. The Court held that the laws interfere with protected speech, as they prevent the platforms from compiling the third-party speech they want in the way they want, thus producing their own distinctive compilations of expression. The Court also held that Texas's asserted interest in correcting the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present is not valid under the First Amendment. View "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves XMission, a Utah-based internet service provider, and PureHealth Research, a Wyoming LLC that sells nutritional supplements online. XMission sued PureHealth in federal district court in Utah, alleging that PureHealth sent thousands of unwanted promotional emails to XMission’s customers in Utah, violating state and federal law. This resulted in increased server maintenance costs and customer complaints for XMission. PureHealth moved to dismiss the case for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, arguing it lacked sufficient contacts with Utah and the lawsuit did not “arise out of or relate to” its forum conduct. The district court granted the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court found that PureHealth knowingly sent marketing emails to XMission’s customers in Utah, which constituted purposeful direction of its activities at residents of the forum state. The court also found that XMission’s claims arose out of or related to those activities. Therefore, the court concluded that Utah had specific personal jurisdiction over PureHealth. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "XMission, LC v. PureHealth Research" on Justia Law

Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC, an Ohio-based company, filed a lawsuit against Pulse8, LLC and Pulse8, Inc., Maryland-based companies. The dispute arose when Pulse8 sent a fax to Family Health inviting it to a free webinar on medical coding technology, a product that Pulse8 sells. Family Health claimed that this fax was an unsolicited advertisement and thus violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Pulse8 argued that the fax did not qualify as an advertisement under the TCPA because the webinar was free.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Pulse8's motion to dismiss the case, agreeing with Pulse8's argument that the fax did not qualify as an advertisement under the TCPA. Family Health appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit Court disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court found that the fax did have a commercial component, as it was sent by a company that sells a product related to the subject of the webinar. The court concluded that the fax was being used to market Pulse8's product. The court also found that Family Health had plausibly alleged that accepting the invitation to the webinar would trigger future advertising. However, the court rejected Family Health's argument that the fax was an advertisement because it offered a chance to win a gift card in exchange for completing a survey. The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC v. Pulse8, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Capitol Broadcasting Company, McClatchy Company LLC, and James S. Farrin, P.C. (the plaintiffs) who sought access to certain accident reports from the City of Raleigh, the City of Salisbury, the City of Kannapolis, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, and the North Carolina State Highway Patrol Department (the defendants). The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to these reports under North Carolina state law. However, the defendants refused to release the reports, arguing that a federal privacy statute prohibited them from doing so. The plaintiffs then sought a declaratory judgment in federal court that the federal law did not apply.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to raise a federal question on its face, as the right the plaintiffs asserted was a state law right and the federal law was only relevant as a potential defense.The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to raise a federal question on its face. The court explained that the plaintiffs' claim was based on state law, and the federal law was only relevant as a potential defense. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the complaint presented a substantial question of federal law because it sought to assert their First Amendment rights. The court concluded that the First Amendment concerns were not sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction as they were not dispositive in resolving the core dispute of the interplay between the state law and the federal law. View "Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. City of Raleigh" on Justia Law

This case revolves around the question of whether a search for internet-related evidence that extended to a previously unknown basement apartment was reasonable, even though the apartment was not specified in the warrant. The police had obtained a warrant to search a property after receiving information that child pornography had been downloaded to a particular IP address associated with that address. The property appeared to be a single-family home. However, during the execution of the warrant, the police encountered Kevin Matthew Dhyne, who lived in a basement apartment on the property and used the same internet access as the rest of the house. The police searched Dhyne’s apartment and found sexually explicit material involving children on his laptop.The trial court agreed with Dhyne's argument that the search violated the U.S. and Colorado constitutions because the warrant was not specific to his basement apartment. However, the court denied Dhyne’s motion to suppress the evidence, reasoning that even if the officers had not searched his apartment in conjunction with the original warrant, they would have executed the same search later that day under a warrant specific to the basement apartment, and the evidence would therefore have inevitably been discovered. Dhyne was convicted of two counts of sexual exploitation of a child.The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion, though it did so by upholding the search rather than by applying the inevitable discovery exception. The court of appeals agreed that for a multi-dwelling unit, separate dwellings normally require separate, specific warrants. However, the court justified the search of Dhyne’s apartment based on the shared use of the IP address.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the outcome, holding that the warrant's reference to the property's "[h]ouse, garage, and any outbuildings" was sufficiently specific because there were no outward indicators that the basement apartment existed. The court also held that the execution of the warrant was reasonable in this specific scenario, where the warrant was for all buildings on the property and the defendant told the police that he lived in the basement and used the IP address that provided grounds for the search. View "Dhyne v. People" on Justia Law

The case involves Clayton Zellmer, who sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook) for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Zellmer, who never used Facebook, claimed that the company violated BIPA when it created a "face signature" from photos of him uploaded by his friends and failed to publish a written policy outlining its retention schedule for collected biometric data.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Meta on Zellmer's claim under Section 15(b) of BIPA. The court reasoned that it would be practically impossible for Meta to comply with BIPA if it had to obtain consent from everyone whose photo was uploaded to Facebook before it could use its Tag Suggestions feature. The court also dismissed Zellmer's claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA for lack of standing, holding that Zellmer did not suffer a particularized injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions but on different grounds. The appellate court rejected the district court's reasoning for granting summary judgment, stating that BIPA's plain text applies to everyone whose biometric identifiers or information is held by Facebook. However, the court concluded that there was no material dispute of fact as to whether Meta violated BIPA's plain terms. The court found that face signatures, which are created from uploaded photos, cannot identify and therefore are not biometric identifiers or information as defined by BIPA. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Zellmer's claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA for lack of standing, agreeing with the district court that Zellmer did not suffer a particularized injury. View "ZELLMER V. META PLATFORMS, INC." on Justia Law

John M. Burkman and Jacob A. Wohl were charged with bribing or intimidating voters, conspiracy to bribe or intimidate voters, and two counts of using a computer to commit a crime. The charges stemmed from a robocall they designed and financed in 2020, which targeted voters in Michigan areas with significant Black populations. The robocall claimed that voting by mail would result in the voter’s personal information becoming part of a public database used by the police to track down old warrants, by credit card companies to collect debt, and potentially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track people for mandatory vaccines. The district court found probable cause to believe that the defendants had committed the charged offenses and bound them over for trial. The defendants moved to quash the bindovers, arguing that the robocall was not a “menace” or “other corrupt means or device” under the relevant statute and that the statute was unconstitutional. The circuit court denied the motions.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the defendants’ conduct fell within the term “menace” as used in the relevant statute. However, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the defendants’ conduct fell within the statutory catchall term “other corrupt means or device.” The Supreme Court also held that the defendants’ conduct was not excluded from constitutional free-speech protections under the true-threat exception, but erred by holding that the defendants’ conduct was excluded from constitutional free-speech protections under the speech-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception. The Supreme Court adopted a limiting construction of the statute’s catchall provision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "People v. Burkman" on Justia Law

A graphic designer, Cynthia Foss, filed a lawsuit against Marvic, Inc., Brady-Built, Inc., and Charter Communications, alleging copyright infringement. Foss claimed that Marvic and Brady-Built used a marketing brochure she created without her permission. She also sought a declaratory judgment that Charter Communications was not eligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe-harbor defense.Previously, Foss had filed a similar lawsuit against Marvic alone, which was dismissed because she had not registered her copyright before filing the suit. This dismissal was affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In the current case, the District Court dismissed Foss's copyright infringement claim against Marvic and Brady-Built on the grounds of claim preclusion, citing the dismissal of her earlier lawsuit. The court also dismissed her claim against Charter Communications for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a plausible claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the dismissal of the copyright infringement claim against Marvic and Brady-Built. The court found that the dismissal of Foss's earlier lawsuit was not a "final judgment on the merits" for claim preclusion purposes. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Foss's claim against Charter Communications for lack of jurisdiction. The court also vacated the District Court's alternative merits-based dismissal of Foss's claim against Charter Communications. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Foss v. Marvic" on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs Christopher Calise and Anastasia Groschen, who alleged that they were harmed by fraudulent third-party advertisements posted on Meta Platforms, Inc.'s (commonly known as Facebook) website, in violation of Meta's terms of service. Meta claimed immunity from liability under § 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which applies to a provider or user of an interactive computer service that a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' non-contract claims, ruling that they were barred by § 230(c)(1) of the CDA. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' contract-related claims, holding that Meta's duty arising from its promise to moderate third-party advertisements was related to Meta's status as a "publisher or speaker" of third-party advertisements, and therefore § 230(c)(1) barred the plaintiffs' contract claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' non-contract claims, agreeing that these claims derived from Meta's status as a "publisher or speaker" of third-party advertisements. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal of the plaintiffs' contract-related claims, holding that Meta's duty arising from its promise to moderate third-party advertisements was unrelated to Meta's status as a "publisher or speaker" of third-party advertisements, and therefore § 230(c)(1) did not bar the plaintiffs' contract claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law