California Business Litigation Blog

Internet giant Google has been sued by Aaron and Christine Boring for taking photographs of their property for Google Maps Street View feature. The problem is that the photos were taken from a private road.

For those who have not yet experienced Google Street View it is a feature of Google maps that allows users to actually “visit” the street via the internet through photographs providing a 360 degree view.

Not all cities have this Google feature available yet, but the Boring’s property was included last year. The images are captured by a car similar to the one seen above with an array of cameras mounted to its roof.

Google spokesperson Larry Yu said that the company has a policy of only taking photos from public streets. He also said that concerned citizens can contact the company if they want a photo taken down. Yu added “"We absolutely respect that people may not be comfortable with some of the imagery on the site. We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery."

In this case, damages may be difficult to prove since Google is not the only place on the web showing an image of the Boring’s home. The Allegheny County real estate Web site has a photo, a description of the home and the couple's name. The site contains similar information, including pictures, of nearly every property in the county.

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the photos (which are no longer on Google Streetview), a copy of the lawsuit (including the Boring’s home address) and a photo from the Allegheny County website.

Continue reading "Google Sued by the Borings for Invasion of Privacy" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Internet

Bookmark:

Most of us have seen the LifeLock advertisement in which company CEO Todd Davis reveals his Social Security number and then speaks about the effectiveness of the company’s protections. Experian’s lawsuit claims that LifeLock’s ads are fraudulent and misleading. Experian also claims that LifeLock’s primary means of protecting its 600,000 clients is filing a fraud alert every 90 days for each LifeLock client.

A fraud alert is a notice/flag put on your credit report through the consumer reporting agencies. This flag establishes that as part of any credit approval process, you need to be notified.

Experian claims LifeLock’s practice of filing fraud alerts on behalf of clients is illegal because, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, “fraud alerts can only be requested by the individual consumer or an individual acting on behalf of the consumer."

Further the lawsuit claims, adding four alerts per year for 600,000 LifeLock members to Experian’s database will degrade the effectiveness of legitimate fraud alerts over time. Credit grantors could lose the ability to distinguish between fraud alerts added by consumers who legitimately believe that identity theft is imminent and those added by LifeLock. The complaint alleges that credit grantors will have reason to doubt the credibility of all fraud alerts and their effectiveness for consumers legitimately impacted by fraud and identity theft will be severely compromised.

The complaint against LifeLock was filed by Experian in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , False Advertising , Internet

Bookmark:

Lisa Krinsky was formerly president and CEO of SFBC International in Florida. On a financial message board hosted by Yahoo, Krinsky was the target of some very negative, crude and vulgar comments. Krinsky filed suit against 10 pseudonymous posters for libel and interference with contractual/business relationships.

The problem was that she had to identify the people she was suing. Krinsky attempted to discover the defendants’ identities by serving a subpoena on Yahoo. Yahoo notified Doe 6 that it would comply with the subpoena in 15 days unless a motion to quash or other legal objection was filed.

Doe 6 then moved in superior court to quash the subpoena on the grounds that (1) plaintiff had failed to state a claim sufficient to overcome his First Amendment rights for either defamation or interference with a contractual or business relationship, and (2) plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was an invalid prior restraint.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Socrates P. Manoukian concluded that the totality of circumstances justified the relief Krinsky was seeking, and denied Doe 6’s motion to quash.

Doe 6 appealed.

On appeal, Justice Franklin D. Elia wrote for the court that posters to Internet message boards had a First Amendment right to shield their identity, and that this right could only be overcome if Krinsky could make a prima facie showing that a case for defamation existed.

Directly from the opinion, which can be found HERE “We thus conclude that Doe 6's online messages, while unquestionably offensive and demeaning to plaintiff, did not constitute assertions of actual fact and therefore were not actionable under Florida's defamation law. Because plaintiff stated no viable cause of action that overcame Doe 6's First Amendment right to speak anonymously, the subpoena to discover his identity should have been quashed.”

While we in no way condone the vulgarity and crudeness used by Doe 6 (as quoted in the opinion), we commend the California Court of Appeals for protecting our free speech rights related to the Internet.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Internet

Bookmark:

In a David v. Goliath story with a surprise ending, Transmeta and Intel have settled their mutually opposing patent infringement lawsuits. Intel will pay Transmeta a total of $250 Million; $150 Million now plus $20 Million a year for the next 5 years.

In addition to all pending lawsuits being settled, Intel will receive non exclusive rights to Transmeta’s entire patent portfolio (press release here). Transmeta gets an influx of cash and a guaranteed income for 5 years which will allow further research & development. Additionally, Transmeta can proceed without the threat of any additional patent lawsuits from Intel.

So who won? While it may be a little early to speculate, Transmeta is clearly better off than it was before the lawsuits were filed. Prior to this settlement, Transmeta’s market value was slightly over $40 Million. They have pretty much guaranteed their future for at least 5 years. In all likelihood, Intel will parlay their “investment” in Transmeta’s patent portfolio into profits which will exceed their cash outlay.

This is a textbook example of a settlement in a business lawsuit which not only stands to benefit both parties, but consumers as well.

One final note. Transmeta has 2 attorneys on it’s in house legal team while Intel’s in house legal team has over 200. I have long believed that in law, smaller is better because it allows much greater flexibility in litigation.

It’s nice to see that David won even if Goliath didn’t lose!

Continue reading "Intel and Transmeta End Patent Lawsuits With Intriguing Settlement" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Intellectual Property , Internet

Bookmark:

By the time you read this, there will likely be at least one more lawsuit filed against Apple and AT&T over the iPhone. While I believe that all lawyers are good and some are better, it is times like these that make me question some in the legal profession.

When lawyers take on a lawsuit where the plaintiffs are suing because the iPhone will do everything it was promised to do, but won’t allow use on other networks or with third party application software....it just ticks me off!

Good lawyers DO NOT accept meritless lawsuits!

In case you don’t know, the Apple iPhone has been sold to only work on the AT&T network. There were never any other promises in any advertising or on the website. If you visit the Apple iPhone questions and answers web page you will find the following:

Can I “unlock” iPhone and use it with another wireless carrier?
AT&T is the exclusive wireless carrier for iPhone in the United States. If you currently use another wireless carrier, you can choose to transfer your number when you activate your AT&T account.

One of the toughest aspects of my practice is meeting with people who think they have a case and telling them they don’t. Countless times during an initial consultation with a prospective client, I have to tell them honestly that they have little or no chance of coming out ahead in a lawsuit. Most people appreciate our integrity.

Knowing where you stand before signing a retainer agreement or writing a check means that both you and your lawyer have a better chance of reaching a favorable result in your legal matter. This is one of the reasons for success on our clients’ behalf.

If your iPhone won’t fly a kite or will not do anything else it was not intended to do…call someone else. But if you want an honest appraisal of your current legal issue (always at no charge), call me today at 818-461-8500.

Richard Oppenheim

PS Additional helpful information may be found in questions 5 and 6 in our resource document “Eleven Questions to Ask BEFORE Hiring a Business Attorney”. You will find it on our website Home page.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , False Advertising , Internet

Bookmark:

The RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) has filed an estimated 20,000 lawsuits in the last 3 years against people (many of them unnamed “John Does”) for downloading music on P2P networks. One such lawsuit was filed against siblings Michelle and Robert Santangelo who have filed a motion to add AOL and Sharman Networks/KaZaa as third party defendants.

In this legal strategy, the Santangelos are demanding approximately $3.9 million each from AOL & Sharman. Their claim is that AOL did not take any actions to block file sharing and did not warn Michelle and Robert about consequences. The revised Complaint also blames KaZaa for designing software which automatically shares downloaded files. It also alleges that both AOL and Sharman failed to pass on RIAA warnings related to the legality and consequences of file sharing.

If the Santangelos are successful other P2P defendants in RIAA suits would likely sue their internet service and file sharing network providers for damages. Further, it could lead to file sharing software providers and ISP’s changing how they handle file downloading and uploading on the internet.

The strategy of adding other parties (especially larger companies with deeper pockets) to business lawsuits has been around a long time. It requires a special set of conditions...

Continue reading "AOL & KaZaa Could be Added to RIAA v. Santangelo Lawsuit" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Internet

Bookmark:

We regularly receive requests to explain the process of litigation, which we always communicate (using dialog NOT monologue) to prospective clients during our initial consultation. We hope you will find our lawsuit synopsis helpful. Feel free to forward it to others and remember to contact us with any questions about any business or employment lawsuit.

The litigation process generally involves four (4) phases. The length of each phase varies with the legal and factual complexities of each case.

The initial phase takes place before anything is filed in court. The attorney meets with the client to determine the facts of the claim being advanced by the client or the client's defense to a claim brought by another. In either case, it is essential that the client meet with the attorney at the earliest opportunity as valuable rights may be lost by delay. Once the attorney meets with the client, the attorney will review any documents relevant to the matter, research the applicable law and possibly speak to witnesses in order to chart a course which is in the best interest of the client.

The next phase involves the filing of an initial pleading in court. Typically, this is the filing of a Complaint or an Answer to a Complaint. The discovery process begins, which may include serving the other side with written questions, called Interrogatories, obtaining evidence which may be in the possession of the adversary or some other party and taking depositions, the oral questioning of parties and witnesses.

Once this phase has been completed, the case is ready to be tried. A trial may be in front of a Jury or a Judge and can vary in length depending upon the number of witnesses and quantity of exhibits offered. Under our system of jurisprudence, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The plaintiff's case goes first. The defendant then has an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's case with witnesses and evidence to support the defense. If the defendant has brought a Cross-Complaint, it is tried in the same manner. Otherwise, the plaintiff has an opportunity to put on a rebuttal case to counter the evidence offered by the defendant and, on occasion, a defendant may offer a sur-rebuttal to reply to the evidence offered by plaintiff in the rebuttal case.

The final phase of litigation involves the post-trial matters including motions to vacate or correct the judgment, appeals and efforts to collect on the judgment.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Contract Litigation , Employment Law , False Advertising , Internet , Real Estate

Bookmark:

Can a social networking site like MySpace.com prevent its users from posting links to other competing social networking websites? According to U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz, it can. In his ruling Judge Matz threw out the antitrust claim against MySpace.com declaring that the social networking site isn't required to display competitors' Web page links.

According to court documents, LiveUniverse alleges that MySpace prevents users from watching vidiLife videos that they or other users previously loaded onto their MySpace webpage, deletes references to vidiLife.com on MySpace and prevents MySpace users from mentioning “vidiLife.com.”

This may be the first antitrust case to address whether a social networking site can prevent its users from posting certain links. Representing MySpace, attorney Richard Stone stated ”MySpace doesn't prevent anyone from going to their competitors' sites, but, we have no responsibility to build a moving walkway to a competitor's store." Stone continued “And by including those links, MySpace would be risking exposure if sites such as vidiLife had any inappropriate content. “

LiveUniverse, owner of vidiLife.com was founded by Brad Greenspan. Mr. Greenspan was the founder eUniverse the company that created MySpace.com which was sold to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for $580 Million. According to Business Week, in that transaction Greenspan pocketed more than $47 Million.

Another VERY important aspect of this lawsuit is the lawsuit timeline.

The suit was filed on November 2, 2006. On November 22 MySpace filed a motion to dismiss LiveUniverse’s complaint. The court held a hearing on December 18 in which it granted that motion, but gave LiveUniverse an opportunity to clarify one premise of the complaint.

On January 16, 2007 LiveUniverse filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). On February 5, MySpace filed the motion to dismiss the FAC.

The court held a hearing on March 5 and presented its decision on June 4, 2007.
In only seven months, this lawsuit went from initial complaint to resolution. Lawsuits do not have to drag on for years while depleting the assets of both parties. As was done here, good lawyers look for, create and act on opportunities to move toward resolution.

Continue reading "VidiLife.com (LiveUniverse) Loses Antitrust Case Against MySpace.com" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Internet

Bookmark:

Last month final approval was given for a class action settlement involving “click fraud” that has Yahoo paying nearly $5 million in attorney fees and giving full credits to advertisers dating back to 2004.

The judge's action on Monday settles claims by Checkmate Strategic Group that Yahoo charged advertisers for clicks on online ads that were done in bad faith or fraudulent.

Although preliminary approval was given last summer, final approval for this settlement was held up by attorneys representing parties in a similar (Google) lawsuit in Arkansas. The California settlement releases Yahoo from all similar click fraud claims against it in other actions in all other states. That’s an offer Yahoo couldn’t refuse.

Reggie Davis, Yahoo's new vice president of marketplace quality stated “Final approval of the settlement validates the strength of Yahoo's click-through protection systems, and our commitment to delivering a quality experience to both our advertisers and our consumers. Our commitment does not stop here. Quality is a top priority for Yahoo, and we have a clear road map for how we're going to create the highest-quality search-advertising network in the industry."

Additionally, in my opinion final approval of this settlement allows Yahoo to put this resource draining litigation behind them, allowing Yahoo to focus on the future of the internet search business.

Putting litigation behind you is often a wise strategy in business.

Continue reading "California Judge Gives Final OK to Yahoo Click Fraud Settlement" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Internet

Bookmark:

In a case that closely mirrors a 2004 California lawsuit, New Hampshire has a law requiring anyone or any business running real estate ads on the web for New Hampshire homes to be a real estate broker. An internet listing service ZeroBrokerFees.com sued the New Hampshire Real Estate Commission and the state attorney general last year challenging the constitutionality of the law.

The Real Estate Commission failed in their attempt to have the suit dismissed. U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge James Muirhead ruled on Tuesday March 13 that the lawsuit presents important free speech questions that can and should be resolved in court.

ZeroBrokerFees.com argued that it provides advertising services similar to newspapers that publish Real Estate ads online and in print.

In late 2004, California lost a similar case when Sacramento U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ruled that ForSaleByOwner.com did not need a RE Broker’s license to publish paid ads listing properties for sale any more than any print publication.

In my opinion, it seems that a great deal of taxpayer money is being wasted making sure that internet companies enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet , Real Estate

Bookmark: