Corporate Use of Third-Party Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
One Month to More Effective Written Standards: Day 17 – Policies for Third-Parties
Third Party Observation in Patent Prosecution in China
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Recent Federal and State Debt Collection Developments
Thobekile Cynthia Khumalo on Third Party Due Diligence
Protecting Trade Secrets When Facing Lawsuits or Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
Education Data Privacy and Security Laws: Best Practices for School Districts
Episode 162 -- Jessica Sanderson on How to Conduct a Remote Third Party Audit
VIDEO: Update on Third Party Workers’ Compensation Settlements in Pennsylvania
Episode 120: Interview of NAVEX Global Third-Party Risk Officials: Chris Bailey and Stephen Gooding
Subro Sense Podcast - Unpacking Product Claims Against Amazon
Business Succession Planning: Strategies for the Transition
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
Day 17 of One Month to More Effective Continuous Improvement-Financial Health Monitoring
Day 6 of One Month to More Effective Continuous Improvement-Data Analytics and the Monitoring of Third Parties
FCPA COMPLIANCE REPORT-EPISODE 337, JAMES GELLERT ON ASSESSING 3RD PARTY FINANCIAL HEALTH FOR COMPLIANCE
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 274, Scott Lane on an holistic approach to third party management
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 169-the First Mailbag Issue
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 95-interview with Scott Killingsworth on Private to Private Compliance Solutions
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 88, Internal Controls for Third Parties Under the FCPA, Part I
Last month, the Ninth Circuit reeled back protections for digital media platforms on which scam ads are found. Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 103 F.4th 732 (9th Cir. 2024) Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act...more
In the prior two installments of our six-part series examining Section 230, the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that immunizes online service providers from liability stemming from the publication and...more
The Internet makes it easier than ever to connect with people around the world, share ideas and information, and have their voices heard regardless of whether they are a single individual with limited resources or a massive...more
In this second installment of our six-part series examining Section 230, the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that immunizes online service providers from liability stemming from the publication and...more
Here at Socially Aware we talk a lot about Section 230, the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that immunizes social media platforms and other online service providers from liability stemming from content...more
As reported in prior Trending Law Blog posts, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S. §230(c)(1) (“§230”), has come under attack by politicians and members of the public who seek to remove the statute’s...more
By: Neusha Etemad and Anne Marie Ellis CDA Background Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was enacted in 1996 to provide websites with immunity from liability arising from posting third-party content. For a...more
Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act provides broad immunity to online platforms for claims arising from hosting third-party content (though just how broad is a hot issue that the Supreme Court may decide this...more
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) provides immunity to “interactive computer services” providers against certain types of legal claims, such as when harmful material is posted on their site by third...more
A bipartisan group of 27 AGs submitted amicus briefing to the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, urging a narrow interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies...more
Since the passage of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (“CDA”), the majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad federal immunity to causes of action that would treat service providers...more
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was a landmark law enacted to regulate content on the internet. The purpose of the legislation was to regulate indecent and obscene material online, but it is most relevant today...more
While we are still in the infancy of the Biden Administration, it is clear that bipartisan desire to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) remains active. On February 8, 2021, Sen. Mark Warner...more
In a decision that may impact future e-commerce, the California Court of Appeal held in Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC that under California law, Amazon could be strictly liable for an allegedly defective battery manufactured by a...more
The California Court of Appeals recently ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product sold by a third-party vender on its website. Bolger v. Amazon, D075738, 2020...more
In Elliott v. Donegan, a federal district court in New York held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not warrant the dismissal of a defamation claim where the plaintiff’s complaint did not “foreclose[] the...more
The most typical case that implicates Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) involves a provider that hosts content and a third party plaintiff seeking to have content removed. Last month, in a less typical case,...more
Historically, many jurisdictions have held that Amazon was not a “Seller” when considering products sold on its website by third-party vendors. Recently, a U.S. Court of Appeals held for the first time that Amazon was a...more
In the swirl of scrutiny surrounding the big Silicon Valley tech companies and with some in Congress declaiming that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) should be curtailed, 2019 has quietly been an important...more
In early July, an appeals court ruled that Amazon should be considered a “seller” of goods under Pennsylvania products liability law and subject to strict liability for consumer injuries caused by the defective goods sold on...more
The 3rd Circuit recently held Amazon.com liable for damages for a product sold by a third-party. This is a potentially landmark ruling in the ongoing battle between consumers and online platforms regarding the obligations...more
In my article last month, “Should Amazon be Liable for Products Sold in its Marketplace,” I discussed how the Fourth Circuit, like many courts before it, ruled Amazon was not a “Seller” when considering products sold on its...more
Defective products harm consumers. Courts have consistently held, however, that Amazon is not liable for defective products acquired through its on-line marketplace because the company is not a “seller” and is otherwise...more
In the past few months, there have been a number of notable decisions affirming broad immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. §230(c), for online providers that host third party content. The beat goes...more