Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, a case about whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) protected YouTube’s recommendation algorithms from a claim of secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). In a short, three-page per curiam opinion, the Court avoided addressing the
Updated April 12, 2023. Originally posted March 23, 2023.
In March, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks public comment on a proposed licensing framework that would enable multiple satellite operators to supplement the network coverage of terrestrial wireless service providers. Termed “Supplemental Coverage from Space” (SCS), this service would authorize certain satellite systems to use spectrum licensed to a terrestrial network provider partner to provide expanded coverage to the provider’s wireless customers, even in remote areas. Comments on the NPRM, which appeared in today’s Federal Register, are due Friday, May 12, with reply comments due the following month, on Monday, June 12.Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comment on “Supplemental Coverage from Space” Rules, Responding to Growing Trend towards Partnerships between Satellite Operators and Wireless Network Providers
On September 16, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in NetChoice L.L.C. v. Paxton, upholding Texas HB 20, a law that limits the ability of large social media platforms to moderate content and imposes various disclosure and appeal requirements on them. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, which previously blocked the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the law. NetChoice is likely to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
HB 20 prohibits “social media platforms” with “more than 50 million active users” from “censor[ing] a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person” based on the “viewpoint” of the user or another person, or the user’s location. HB 20 also includes various transparency requirements for covered entities, for example, requiring them to publish information about their algorithms for displaying content, to publish an “acceptable use policy” with information about their content restrictions, and to provide users an explanation for each decision to remove their content, as well as a right to appeal the decision.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Law Restricting Online “Censorship”
On September 12, 2022, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) published a Request for Information, seeking public comment on how to structure implementing regulations for reporting requirements under the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (“CIRCIA”). Written comments are requested on or before November 14, 2022 and may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.Continue Reading CISA Requests Public Comment on Implementing Regulations for the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act
Policymakers and candidates of both parties have increased their focus on how technology is changing society, including by blaming platforms and other participants in the tech ecosystem for a range of social ills even while recognizing them as significant contributors to U.S. economic success globally. Republicans and Democrats have significant interparty—and intraparty—differences in the form of their grievances and on many of the remedial measures to combat the purported harms. Nonetheless, the growing inclination to do more on tech has apparently driven one key congressional committee to have compromised on previously intractable issues involving data privacy. Rules around the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence, which have attracted numerous legislative proposals in recent years, may be the next area of convergence. Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms in the Next Congress
Recent months have seen a growing trend of data privacy class actions asserting claims for alleged violations of federal and state video privacy laws. In this year alone, plaintiffs have filed dozens of new class actions in courts across the country asserting claims under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (“MPPPA”), and New York’s Video Consumer Privacy Act (“NYVCPA”).Continue Reading Emerging Trends: Renewed Wave of Video Privacy Class Actions
Over the last year we have seen increasing interest from our global client base in investing in strategic, transformational technology transactions with European counterparties. These transactions often facilitate access to key technologies, geographies and, of course, data. In this note we set out 6 key points to keep in mind when planning, negotiating and executing these types of transactions across Europe.
Continue Reading Strategic Technology Transactions in Europe – Considerations for U.S. and Global Companies
This month, situated among foldable tablet computers and flying taxis, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show (“CES”) the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) long-anticipated fourth round of automated vehicles guidance, “AV 4.0.” Formally entitled, “Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies,” AV 4.0 is less regulatory guidance and more regulatory aggregator. The document lists in great detail the various Administration efforts—across 38 federal departments and agencies—geared toward promoting, supporting, and providing accountability for users and communities with respect to autonomous mobility.
Continue Reading IoT Update: DOT Introduces Fourth Round of Automated Vehicles Guidance (AV 4.0)
Artificial intelligence is your new insurance claims agent. For years, insurance companies have used “InsurTech” AI to underwrite risk. But until recently, the use of AI in claims handling was only theoretical. No longer. The advent of AI claims handling creates new risks for policyholders, but it also creates new opportunities for resourceful policyholders to uncover bad faith and encourage insurers to live up to their side of the insurance contract.
Most readers are familiar with Lemonade, the InsurTech start-up that boasts a three-second AI claims review process. However, as noted in a Law360 article last year, Lemonade deferred any potential claim denials for human review, so the prospect of AI bad faith is still untested. Now it is only a matter of time before insurers face pressure to use the available technology to deny claims as well.
So what happens when a claim is denied?Continue Reading AI Update: What Happens When a Computer Denies Your Insurance Coverage Claim?
Wearable watches that help consumers obtain a better understanding of their eating patterns; wearable clothes that send signals to treating physicians; smart watches: they are but a few examples of the increasingly available and increasingly sophisticated “wearables” on the EU market. These technologies are an integrated part of many people’s lives, and in some cases allow healthcare professionals to follow-up on the condition or habits of their patients, often in real-time. How do manufacturers determine what wearables qualify as medical devices? How do they assess whether their devices need a CE-mark? Must they differentiate between the actual “wearable” and the hardware or software that accompanies them? In this short contribution, we briefly analyze some of these questions. The article first examines what “wearables” are, and when they qualify as a medical device under current and future EU rules. It then addresses the relevance of the applicability of EU medical devices rules to these products. The application of these rules is often complex and highly fact-specific.
Continue Reading IoT Update: Are Wearables Medical Devices Requiring a CE-Mark in the EU?