Tangled Web

12/10/12

By Dan Brillman

Admit it: We've all written (or at least swore we'd write) a scathing online review after encountering a lousy meal or a rude clerk. We then slept soundly, satisfied that cyberjustice would prevail.

But should we take more care in what we write? As The Washington Post notes, online comments and reviews increasingly are the target of defamation lawsuits, citing the case of Virginia resident Jane Perez. Dissatisfied with a job done by contractor Christopher Dietz, Perez wrote posts on review sites Yelp and Angie's List accusing Dietz of overbilling, damaging her home and possible theft. Dietz replied with a $750,000 defamation suit that also asks for Perez to be banned from writing similar reviews. He said his business has been hurt by unfounded claims.

Lawsuits like this typically are kicked out of court because online speech is protected by the First Amendment, the story says, for most comments offer opinions that are virtually impossible to codify. But when more factual accusations are made, laws can take hold.

"As the Internet has matured," one lawyer tells the paper, "more people are feeling the sting of negative posts against them, and the public and jurors are getting more educated about the impacts this speech can have."

Bend it like Bikram

12/10/12

By Suhrith Parthasarathy

A popular yoga chain that offers classes in heated rooms has agreed to settle a copyright infringement claim by Bikram Choudhury, considered the creator of so-called hot yoga, reports The New York Times. In November 2011, Choudhury filed a lawsuit in California district court against his former protégé Greg Gumucio and his "Yoga to the People" studios. Choudhury argued that hot yoga, a series of 26 postures performed in a room heated to 105 degrees, was his intellectual property and that Gumucio had stolen the idea from him.

Things didn't look so good for Choudhury in June 2012, when the U.S. Copyright Office ruled that yoga sequences cannot be copyrighted (as reported in Summary Judgments). The Copyright Office admitted to erring in having offered copyright protection to such positions in the past.

Nevertheless, Gumucio, who charges $8 per class instead of the $25 by Choudhury, has agreed to stop offering his hot yoga classes by Feb. 15.

Out of office

12/10/12

By Casey Sullivan

Since Hurricane Sandy, some law firms in downtown Manhattan like Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson have been able to move back into their headquarters. But six weeks after the storm, other firms have been less fortunate and still are working out of temporary offices, according to the New York Law Journal.

Harris Beach, a 200-lawyer firm that can't return to 100 Wall Street because of ongoing repair work, might have to extend its short-term lease in midtown. The firm Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernson and Loewy is hoping to return to offices at 7 Hanover Square in January but doesn't have a commitment from the building management yet. "We're also frustrated about not having information" about the building's condition, said executive committee member Michael Patrick. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan is also still out of its downtown offices, as are the firms Gordon & Rees and Cahill Gordon & Reindel.

Settling up

12/10/12

By Eileen Daspin

The New York City Law Department, which once routinely included the amounts it paid to settle federal lawsuits, has quietly stopped the practice, according to The New York Times. About three years ago, the department began notifying plaintiffs' lawyers that the figures would be omitted from court filings as a condition of settling labor and employment lawsuits, writes the Times' Colin Moynihan. As of November, the policy was broadened to include lawsuits involving members of the Police Department. The article cites a recent example where Frankie Lee Smith was arrested for gambling. Smith sued, claiming the arresting officers fabricated police paperwork to make their case. Before Thanksgiving, the city agreed to pay Smith $20,000 to drop the suit but said they would not include the settlement amount in court documents. "I was very surprised," Gabriel Harvis, a lawyer for Smith, told the Times. "The more I thought about it, the more it troubled me." While the article does not explain why the city withheld the information, it quotes a spokeswoman saying "We freely provide information about settlements upon request." "Freely," however, involves filing a Freedom of Information request.

Online sex ad law dies

12/10/12

By Suhrith Parthasarathy

The state of Washington has agreed to drop a law that targeted online child trafficking, saying the statute was unconstitutional, reports Ars Technica. "The law, formally known as SB 6251, aimed to strengthen protections of underage children forced into sexual exploitation and prostitution," explains the website. The law also held liable individuals and companies who were directly engaged in illegal acts, as well as website operators that hosted ads for child prostitution.

Advocates for online rights and the media objected to the statute on grounds that it conflicted with the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that grants website providers broad immunity for content uploaded by third parties. Another problem: The law pressured website operators to "censor protected online speech in order to safely stay on the right side of the unclear law," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lobbying group which filed a lawsuit in federal district court in June on behalf of Internet Archive, a non-profit digital library.

In July, a federal judge imposed a preliminary injunction, finding that the statute conflicted with federal law, which takes precedence.

Now Washington officials have dropped their defense of the law. What's more, the state will pay $200,000 to compensate for the plaintiffs' legal expenses, while attorney general Rob McKenna works with the legislature to repeal the law.

Summary Judgments for December 7

Summary Judgments for December 6

Summary Judgments for December 5

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook