Court case

A divided California Supreme Court has ruled that online review site Yelp.com cannot be ordered to remove posts against a San Francisco (CA) law firm that a judge determined were defamatory. The 4-3 ruling came in a closely watched case that internet companies warned could be used to silence online speech. A San Francisco judge determined the posts against attorney Dawn Hassell’s firm were defamatory and ordered Yelp in 2014 to remove them. A second judge and a state appeals court upheld the decision.

Conservative groups, borrowing and building on arguments developed by liberals, have used the First Amendment to justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples, and attacks on the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns. “The libertarian position has become dominant on the right on First Amendment issues,” said Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the Cato Institute. “It simply means that we should be skeptical of government attempts to regulate speech. That used to be an uncontroversial and nonideological point.

In June of 2000, a judge in the US district court for the District of Columbia ruled that Microsoft should be broken up into two separate units—one for Microsoft’s operating system and another for its software products. In June of 2001, an appeals court disagreed. The Microsoft case set a precedent for not breaking up big tech companies, but also prohibited Microsoft from tying Internet Explorer to Windows.

With Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announcing he will retire come July 31, the high court could be headed for a major shift as the president will look to solidify the body’s conservative majority. Here’s a look at how some of his opinions have shaped the technology and telecommunications spheres — and what his absence could mean going forward. A perennial swing vote in his more than 20 years on the high court, Justice Kennedy served as the deciding vote on numerous high-profile legal battles.

Justice Department Antitrust Chief Makan Delrahim said that he doesn't think the Supreme Court's American Express ruling would make it more difficult to take on the biggest online platforms over competition concerns. 

The ripples of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of American Express could be felt on the West Coast, with some arguing it would make it harder for antitrust enforcers to take on big online platforms like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Many of tech’s most profitable firms have created two-sided markets: Google and Facebook serve consumers on one side and marketers on another. Uber links up riders and drivers. Amazon serves customers and also the merchants who use its platform. All these situations make defining a monopoly more difficult.

In a test of antitrust law, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that American Express could use contracts to stop merchants from steering consumers to other cards. The decision has implications not only for what one brief called “an astronomical number of retail transactions” but also for other kinds of markets, notably ones on the internet, in which services link consumers and businesses. Such “two-sided platforms,” the Court said, require special and seemingly more forgiving antitrust scrutiny.

The Supreme Court largely upheld Texas congressional and legislative maps that a lower court said discriminated against black and Hispanic voters. The lower court was wrong in how it considered the challenges, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 5 to 4 decision. The majority sided with the challengers over one legislative district. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was longer than Justice Alito’s majority decision. She said the decision “does great damage to the right of equal opportunity.

The Supreme Court sent back to a lower court a decision that Republicans in North Carolina had gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts to give their party an unfair advantage. The lower court will need to decide whether the plaintiffs had the proper legal standing to bring the case. The Supreme Court recently considered the question of partisan gerrymandering in cases from Wisconsin and Maryland. The court has never found a map so infected by politics that it violated the constitutional rights of voters. But the justices did not rule on the merits of the issue.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling that police must get a warrant to access the vast trove of location information wireless carriers collect on their customers marks a breakthrough for privacy rights. But the majority in Carpenter v. United States sidestepped key issues about whether police can still access location data in real time or for short periods without a warrant. These gaps will likely give rise to a flurry of new legal challenges --- and are already sparking calls for Congress to step in to fix potential loopholes.