Filter This View

  • Braun v. Philadelphia Inquirer, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Internet Law
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Younge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-cv-4185-JMY

    Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, concluding plaintiffs stated claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act where they alleged that an online digital content provider disclosed their video watching history to Facebook.

  • Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-23
    Practice Area: Internet Law
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Stickman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1495

    Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's action asserting violations of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and tortious intrusion upon seclusion for the collection of her data and keystrokes as she browsed a website and court found discovery was needed before court could determine where the alleged conduct in violation of WESCA took place and plaintiff failed to plead the type of highly offensive act to which liability could attach for her intrusion claim. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

  • Live Face on Web, LLC v. Zeobit, LLC

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Intellectual Property | Internet Law
    Industry: Software
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1619

    The court granted defendants motion to vacate default judgment in plaintiffs copyright infringement action because defendant had a meritorious defense where it asserted it never possessed plaintiffs technology, it was never properly served because the person served was not defendants agent or employee and the delay in filing the motion was not culpable since most of the time was spent in extended discussions with plaintiff as to whether plaintiff would agree not to contest the motion. Motion granted.