Jurisdiction: Maryland v. Carefirst Pregnancy

Carefirst of Maryland v. Carefirst Pregnancy, a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision involves issues of Internet jurisdiction. The court ruled that absent a manifest intent to target residents of the forum, a semi-interactive website with a localized focus based in a foreign state is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. The fact that web hosting services occurred within the forum state was not seen as relevant.
Decision at http://laws.findlaw.com/4th/021137p.html

EBay's Joy Ride: Going Once ...

EBay's Joy Ride: Going Once ...
By GARY RIVLIN, New York Times
Many longtime sellers and Wall Street analysts, long bullish on eBay, now say they are uncertain about the company's ability to sustain its torrid rate of growth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/business/
yourmoney/06ebay.html?ex=1110776400&en=7037e4786ef3c892&ei=5070

Are pop-ups spam?

"Computer users are often bombarded with annoying pop-up advertisements. Separately, they also are often bombarded with annoying "spam"-- unsolicited commercial email. Can the pop-up ads be thought of, legally, as a form of spam?"

Read more at: http://practice.findlaw.com/cyberlaw-0205.html

The Case of MGM v. Grokster

"The Supreme Court Finally Steps Into The Fray Between Online File Swappers And The Major Movie And Recording Studios.

On March 29, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., a closely-watched case involving peer-to-peer file sharing - a process in which people send or receive music or movies over the Internet.

The most famous peer-to-peer file sharing site was, of course, Napster. However, after a number of rounds of litigation, Napster has now been transformed into a site that, for a monthly payment, allows only legal downloads of music (that is, downloads of copyright music for which a license has been granted). Other sites, however, continue to offer peer-to-peer file sharing software despite the fact that one of its uses is to pirate copyrighted music and movies - and Grokster is one such site.

The Court's ultimate decision in MGM v. Grokster is very likely to be one of the landmarks of this term."

From: http://practice.findlaw.com/feature-0305.html (The article continues to give a simple, but good, overview of the case.)

DUTCH COURT UPHOLDS BAN ON LADBROKES INTERNET GAMBLING

DUTCH COURT UPHOLDS BAN ON LADBROKES INTERNET GAMBLING
Gambling operator Ladbrokes, owned by Hilton, cannot offer
Internet-based betting services in the Netherlands,
according to a ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court that upheld
a ban by a lower court. Gambling is regulated under Dutch
law, and only organizations with a special permit can offer
services. Ladbrokes, which does not have a permit, is
offering its services on the Internet and through call
centres operated outside the Netherlands. The Supreme Court
noted that the gambling site may use geolocation software to
ban Dutch users from accessing their site. Dutch decision at
<http://ladbrokesdecision.notlong.com/>
Coverage at
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050221/80/fcxg6.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1419838,00.html
[Source BNA newsletter]

Some recent UK Internet jurisdiction cases...

"Online defamation: where a website hit packs a real punch"

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/POOLED/ARTICLES/
BF_NEWSART/VIEW.ASP?Q=BF_NEWSART_105552

"Libel - Abuse of Process - Jameel Vs Dow Jones Inc"

"... the case of Jameel v Dow Jones Inc brings an important restriction on the right of Claimants to sue in this jurisdiction (which is amongst the most Claimant-friendly regimes in the world for libel). Previously, as long as a Claimant could show publication to one person in this jurisdiction, he could bring an action for libel here. This created the difficult scenario for online publishers (e.g. any website owner) of facing claims in England brought by foreign individuals or companies in respect of publications which in reality had little to do with England. The Jameel case was a good example, a Saudi individual suing a US publisher in this jurisdiction on the basis that the website was accessible from England and that he (the Claimant) had some level of reputation here. It emerged in evidence that, in fact, only five people had accessed the website from England, including the Claimant himself and two of his legal advisors.

The Court of Appeal indicated that it will no longer allow this sort of claim. It held that the costs of the case would have been completely disproportionate to the benefit which the Claimant could have acheived and the action was therefore struck out as an abuse of process. The decision is of some comfort to website owners, but is unlikely to impact claims where the Claimant does have some genuine connection to this jurisdiction and can show that the defamatory words have been read by more than a minimal number of people."
From http://www.legalday.co.uk/
lexnex/eversheds/eversheds05/e80180205.htm

Welcome

Welcome to Legal Regulation of the Internet - LWN117

The course starts on Monday evening this week.

To see the study guide, go to www.geocities.com/swinsonlaw/

Enjoy the course!