Court case

The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether internet platforms may be sued for aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to remove videos supporting the Islamic State.

In a case with the potential to alter the very structure of the internet, the Supreme Court did not appear ready to limit a law that protects social media platforms from lawsuits over their users’ posts.

Starry, a licensed fixed wireless technology developer and internet service provider, and its US affiliates and subsidiaries announced that they have filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and have entered into a Restructuring Support Agreement (the “RSA”) with lenders holding the Company’s debt. The RSA contains agreed-upon terms for a pre-packaged financial restructuring plan that is expected to significantly reduce the Company’s debt, optimize the Company’s capital structure and li

Dozens between government officials and executives at Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media companies that have spilled into public are at the heart of a partisan legal battle that could disrupt the Biden administration’s already struggling efforts to combat disinformation. The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both Republicans, have sued the White House and dozens of officials, accusing them of forcing the platforms to stifle the voices of its political critics in violation of the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken enforcement action for the first time under its Health Breach Notification Rule against the telehealth and prescription drug discount provider GoodRx Holdings Inc., for failing to notify consumers and others of its unauthorized disclosures of consumers’ personal health information to Facebook, Google, and other companies. In a first-of-its-kind proposed order, filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, GoodRx will be prohibited from sharing user health data with applicable third parties for advertising purposes, and has agreed to pa

On January 18, 2023, the i2Coalition filed an amici brief with the US Supreme Court in Gonzalez v.

The Justice Department—along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—filed a civil antitrust suit against Google for monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the complaint alleges that Google monopolizes key digital advertising technologies, collectively referred to as the “ad tech stack,” that website publishers depend on to sell ads and that advertisers rely on to

The Supreme Court asked the Biden administration to weigh in on whether states may bar giant social media platforms from removing certain types of political speech, a major First Amendment case that could determine how the constitutional right to free speech applies to the marketplace of ideas on the internet. The request for the solicitor general's views will delay a decision on whether the high court takes up the issue.

The Federal Trade Commission opened a claims process for former AT&T customers who have yet to claim a refund stemming from the FTC’s lawsuit against the company for misleading consumers about its unlimited data plans. Former AT&T customers may be eligible to claim a refund from the $7 million remaining in a fund created to settle allegations that the wireless provider charged for “unlimited” data plans while reducing their data speeds, a practice known as throttling. The FTC in 2019 required AT&T to provide $60 million for refunds for failing to disclose to millions of smartpho

Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to permit interactive computer services to exercise editorial discretion when publishing third-party content, without facing liability. This case seeks to hold YouTube liable for publishing objectionable third-party content. Section 230 does not allow this. Petitioners try to work around this clear statutory prohibition by characterizing their theory of liability in different terms.