What is the law applying to social media?

Useful Resources for Social Media

Recent Rulings on Social Media

76-100 of 193 results

JUSTIN C JONES VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

Here, the Complaint alleges that Chyna posted Plaintiff’s email address and private cell phone number of her social media account and encouraged the public to contact him. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23.) Because Chyna is a celebrity persona with many social media followers, publicizing another person’s private contact information with directions to contact that person is substantially likely to cause distress to that other person, which the Complaint alleges to have resulted in violent threats. (Compl. ¶ 23.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

DAVID LILLIE VS CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

It also points to the fact that Caltech’s JPL has millions of followers on social media platforms and that JPL’s activities are the topic of many news articles across the country and world. (Id.; Sanders Decl., ¶¶3-5.) However, the Court does not find that statements made by Caltech that Plaintiff was in possession of confidential information was made in a place open to the public or a public forum, or that it was made in connection with an issue of public interest. (FAC, ¶¶50-51.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUMINATI NETWORKS, LTD. V. TREND MICRO, INC.

In doing so, the court observed: “In an age of easy public access to previously private information through social media and other means, context allows us to assess the functional relationship between a statement and the issue of public interest on which it touches—deciding, in the process, whether it merits protection under a statute designed to ‘encourage continued participation in matters of public significance.’” (FilmOn, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 140, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

PRAGER UNIVERSITY V. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.

This action arises from Prager University’s allegations that YouTube, LLC and its parent company Google LLC have unlawfully restricted content created by Prager on YouTube, defendants’ social media and video sharing platform. Before the Court are defendants’ demurrer to the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and Prager’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Both motions are opposed. I.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY

Further, defendant argues, her social media postings are relevant to her claims of emotional distress damage. Defendant also contends that there was an anonymous complaint about her “seen on social media in sexual positions, one of which was with our current IT partner DivergeIT.” Plaintiff states in her declaration that there was only one post to her Instagram, which was the video regarding KNL Fitness and that she no longer has access to that video.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANDRE HILL VS CITY OF RICHMOND

The investigator interviewed Abuslin and Hill, reviewed the 300 plus text messages between them, and examined the public portions of Abuslin’s social media accounts. [1 AR, Ex. 1, 34-108.] The investigative report found that Hill engaged in sexual text messaging with Abuslin from his personal phone, while both on-and off-duty, and that he engaged in oral sex with Abuslin on one occasion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

SAN FRANCISCO PIZZA, INC., ET AL. V. VIETNAM TOWN CONDOMINIUM OWNERS

Full Bottle created and managed an online advertising platform that allowed brands to solicit bids for advertising campaigns from Full Bottle’s roster of highly influential social media personalities (known as “influencers”). (Id.) Influencers are celebrities and other people who have large followings on social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube and Facebook. (Id.) Influencers post content on their social media channels which is viewed by followers over the Internet. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

CANDY LOPEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC ET AL

Lopez had these accounts taken down and then reported the social media accounts to human resources. (UMF 47-48.) UPS contends that, taken together, this conduct is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to have created a hostile work environment. UPS also contends that Lopez cannot show that Quon’s conduct interfered with her work performance because she has not missed any time from work or treated for emotional distress. (UMF 4, 20.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

QUINTEROS VS. TAYLOR

Plaintiff’s opposition fails to cite any authorities that contradict the extensive citations to state and federal authorities holding that the CDA bars claims based upon exactly same conduct as alleged here, i.e. allowing a third party to “hack” or otherwise access or modify a social media account, and failing to remove such offensive content upon demand, whether sounding in negligence, or as breach of contract. (See for example, Cross v. Facebook, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 190, 207).

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

ELIZABETH J CARTER VS DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION ET AL

Finally, Defendant’s argument that it was substantially prejudiced by the arbitrator’s refusal to hear testimony from William Talamante and refusal to allow social media evidence is without merit. Defendant has not shown that it was substantially prejudiced by either of these decisions, given that the arbitrator admitted Talamante’s declaration into evidence and considered the social media posts but concluded that they would not be helpful to him as a factfinder. (Hall v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HAYS VS. BEST WESTERN

However, as Defendants point out, these reviews are not directed to the hotel, but to those using these specific social media forums. There are no allegations Defendants were made aware of these reviews. Plaintiffs make the conclusory allegations that the hotel had an ongoing problem of bed bugs, which the hotel management was aware. (Complaint, ¶ 20.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

AXXERA INC., ET AL. V. VUMMANNAGARI ET AL.

Thus, communications configured by the social media user to be public fall within section 2702(b)(3)’s lawful consent exception to section 2702’s prohibition, and, as a result, permits providers to disclose public communications. Here, there is no evidence before the Court to establish Vummannagari’s, his wife’s, or his cousin’s privacy configurations for any of their registered accounts with Google, Skype Communications, WhatsApp Messenger Service, or Facebook.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

ZHOIE PEREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS EDDUIN ZELAYA GRUNFELD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

media at various times his animus towards transgender people.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL SPEZIALI VS THE VIPER ROOM LP ET AL

RPD Nos. 10, 30, 32, and 33 Plaintiff requests documents related to: (1) any rest break or meal breaks provided or taken by employees on the same dates that plaintiff worked, (2) any employees of Defendant, including Plaintiff, being terminated from their employment for failure to promote Defendant over social media, (3) any legal complaints filed against Defendant, and (4) any insurance policies in effect during Plaintiff’s employment through his termination from employment with Defendant that could provide

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HAYMON V. SARANTOS

Sarantos also argues that plaintiff has no admissible evidence of any other incidents where employees of the Club made racial comments to him, or that Club employees made any false and demeaning comments about him in social media or the press, or that any such comments were authorized or directed by Sarantos or Club management.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DOE V. PEÑA

The evidence of the social media postings prior to the assault do not prove that plaintiff was being untruthful in asserting that she was a virgin when defendant Peña sexually assaulted her.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALICIA ROBLES AND SAHIYI-HELEH ROMERO

Husband’s Declaration has Exhibits A through P attached; includes many documents which the Court has been requested to judicially notice; copies of various newspaper and social media excerpts; a proposed DissoMaster and the Declaration of husband’s significant other; testifies that they became an exclusive couple in the spring of 2016; became “a formal couple;” traveled together; husband disclosed to her that he was legally separated (sic) from his wife; she was no longer a factor in his life; he was finalizing

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

NEW U LIFE VS. HARGETT

The individuals that Hargett communicated with have also stated that they did not give someone permission to access their messages. (Stone Decl. ¶4; O’Brien Decl. ¶4; Rackers Decl. ¶4; Walters Decl. ¶4.) In opposition, Debra Ambrose, an independent marketing consultant for New U Life, states that Hargett gave her access to her social media accounts and never revoked access. (Ambrose Decl. ¶3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

ROBERT JOSEPH TYMICH JR. VS. MICHAEL BULLINGER, ET AL

.,” neither did anyone tell Plaintiff the video was posted online or on social media. (Tymich Decl. 90:16-25). Defendant also submits the declaration of Deborah Bullinger who declares that one of the Torrance police officers asked the see the camera footage of the altercation between Plaintiff and sin, and that the officer forwarded the video to his own phone. (Deborah Bullinger Decl. ¶ 6).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHN DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Someone told Doe to delete his text message history with Roe and to block her on his phone and social media accounts. He gave his phone to this person and the text messages were deleted. [Id.] c. Witness Statements: Witness 1: S/he [references in the report are gender neutral] was at the party on April 4. Roe wanted to talk alone with Doe, so they went into a room. S/he estimates they were in the room together for 15 minutes. S/he was standing close to the door and didn’t hear any noises.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

LUISA BASTIDAS MARIN VS PATRICK MICHAEL GRIFFIN ET AL

On the one hand, Defendant correctly notes that anything subject to the requests would actually be information created by Plaintiff herself – if she posted something in social media showing herself dancing, or if Defendant has footage of her hiking, etc., this would only be of Plaintiff herself, so it should not truly be a “surprise.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2019

ANTOINE TAYLOR VS VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL ET AL

In Defendant’s moving papers, Defendant fails to address why it is necessary to demand Plaintiff to produce all documents relating to Plaintiff’s social media content when Defendant can access Plaintiff’s social media page on its own or why it is necessary to demand Plaintiff to produce every document that relate to any and all communications Plaintiff has had with any Presbyterian Hospital employee whether or not it relates to this case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

MOTION FOR ORDER DENYING WME’S “CLAWBACK” REQUEST PURSUANT TO CCP § 2031.285 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Angela White RESPONDING PARTY(S): Third-Party William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Robert Kardashian committed assault and battery against Plaintiff and has publicly slut-shamed and published defamatory statements about Plaintiff on social media.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

STEVEN JENSEN VS KRISTEN KERR ET AL

Nor did he direct any of the co-Defendants to access Plaintiff’s computers, computer systems, computer data, email accounts, or social media accounts. UF Nos. 14, 15, 19, 20; Kerr Decl., ¶¶ 6 – 9. Moreover, C. Kerr allegedly paying for office space and paying Pekarcik a salary does not constitute providing or assisting access to a computer, which is the act prohibited by Penal Code § 502.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WADE V. STARBUCKS CORP. ET AL.

Plaintiff does present evidence of multiple anti-trans social media posts by Guthrie. (See Plaintiff’s Appendix of Exhibits at Exh. D.) However, Guthrie never made any anti-trans or negative comments about plaintiff or her transition, in or out of work. (UMF Nos. 25-26.) Plaintiff was not aware of Guthrie’s social media posts until after plaintiff’s employment with Starbucks ended. (UMF Nos. 39-40.) Guthrie’s posts were not connected to his employment in any way. (See Gov. Code § 12940(j)(l); Myers v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.