News & Analysis as of

Mobile Apps Appeals

CDF Labor Law LLP

Implications of Mahram v. The Kroger Co.: A Closer Look at Arbitration Agreements

CDF Labor Law LLP on

In a recent legal dispute, Mahram v. The Kroger Co., a California Court of Appeal delivered a decision that may have implications for employment arbitration agreements. Although the case at hand involved a consumer...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Amazon Drivers Avoid Arbitration Claiming Non-delivery of Updated TOS

The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion that could shape how companies draft and revise two oft-encountered types of contracts: terms of service agreements (“TOS”) and arbitration clauses. In Jackson v. Amazon.com,...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2022 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends: US District Courts: A Busy Year for Design Patents, Including a $17M Jury...

Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more

White and Williams LLP

Oh Snap! Georgia Supreme Court Revives Suit Against Snapchat for Alleged Faulty Speed Filter

White and Williams LLP on

In Maynard v. Snapchat Inc., No. S21G0555, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 68, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed and remanded an appellate court decision that dismissed the popular mobile app Snapchat from suit. Plaintiffs Wentworth and...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Snapchat’s ‘Speed Filter’: Georgia Supreme Court Revives Negligent Design Claim

On March 15, 2022, the Georgia Supreme Court revived a negligent design claim that had been brought against Snapchat, Inc. (n/k/a Snap, Inc.) involving Snap’s “Speed Filter.” As one of the few decisions across the country...more

Littler

Littler Global Guide - Sweden - Q4 2021

Littler on

On December 17, 2021, the new Whistleblowing Act (2021:890) entered into force, implementing the EU Whistleblowing Directive (2019/1937). The new act provides protection of persons who, in a work-related context, have...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Mixed Ruling on Epic’s Antitrust Challenge to Apple’s App Store

Fenwick & West LLP on

On September 10, 2021, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Fortnite developer Epic Games (Epic) failed to adequately prove its antitrust allegations relating to...more

Smith Gambrell Russell

Georgia Looks at the Creation of a Contract Through a Phone App

Smith Gambrell Russell on

Consumers increasingly conduct business on their phones. They create accounts and make purchases through apps on their phone. But when does a consumer create a binding contract when he conducts business on his phone? The...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Federal Circuit Confirms Data Privacy Patent Is an Invalid Abstract Idea under Section 101

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit looked at a patent directed to a data privacy system that described users operating mobile device apps to "socialize, bank, shop, and navigate." As users operate such apps,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman

The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Video Gaming / E-Gaming Law Update - March 2020

The use of third-party trademarks in video games is not a new phenomenon. In fact, conflicts between game developers and trademark owners have existed for almost as long as the medium itself.1 Now, however, as games continue...more

Carlton Fields

Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration in Smartphone App Case Based on Obscure “Browsewrap” Arbitration...

Carlton Fields on

The Ninth Circuit recently denied a motion to compel arbitration after concluding that an arbitration agreement “buried” in difficult to access terms for a smartphone app did not put users on constructive notice that they...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Financial Daily Dose 11.19.2019 | Top Story: T-Mobile Chief John Legere to Leave Company in April

Robins Kaplan LLP on

T-Mobile chief and fan-of-magenta John Legere has announced that he’ll be stepping down in April at the end of his current contract. Legere will be succeeded by Mike Sievert, the carrier’s current president and COO....more

Rumberger | Kirk

More ADA Lawsuits Targeting Mobile Apps Are Likely Ahead

Rumberger | Kirk on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit earlier this year in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, became the first circuit to expressly extend Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act to mobile applications. ...more

ArentFox Schiff

Domino’s Delivers a Warning Regarding Website and App Accessibility Requirements Under the Americans With Disabilities Act

ArentFox Schiff on

On October 7, 2019, United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a decision by the Ninth Circuit presenting a question of significant importance to business owners engaged in ecommerce: Does Title III of the ADA...more

BCLP

Supreme Court Denies Review in Website Accessibility Case Against Domino’s Pizza

BCLP on

Businesses should expect that lawsuits and demand letters alleging that their websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) will continue to increase in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s October 7,...more

King & Spalding

Supreme Court Rules Apple Must Face Antitrust Suit by App Store Purchasers

King & Spalding on

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision holding that iPhone owners who purchased applications through Apple’s App Store were “direct purchasers” who could sue Apple for monopolization....more

Jones Day

Insights from the Supreme Court’s Apple v. Pepper Antitrust Decision

Jones Day on

In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more

K&L Gates LLP

Follow The Money: The Supreme Court Defines the “First Purchaser” to Whom Illinois Brick Limits Antitrust Damage Claims as a...

K&L Gates LLP on

In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Future of Antitrust Class Actions Foreshadowed in Apple Inc. v. Pepper

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

SCOTUS Blows Down Apple’s House Made of Illinois Brick

In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Evolving Antitrust Principles in the Age of Big Tech: Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit to Move Forward Against Apple

In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple.  Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Upholds Ninth Circuit Decision: Antitrust Action Against Apple May Proceed

Carlton Fields on

In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Apple Inc. v. Pepper: The Supreme Court Chips Away at Illinois Brick, Allowing iPhone Users to Sue Apple for Monopolizing iPhone...

• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

App Store Purchasers Entitled To Bite At The Antitrust Apple, Says Supreme Court

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more

42 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide