Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 221 - 240
of 4,714
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2023, 8:08 am
Boycotts are inhibiting Biofire—they have had to go fully direct to consumer b/c dealers won’t stock them for fear of boycotts. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 1:03 pm
So he doesn’t think this undoes the progress of Campbell and Google v. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 11:05 am
Consumer protection: laws meant to protect consumers, death doesn’t matter—Princess Diana’s image on collectible plates—TM claim was maintainable. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 8:15 am
Sys. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 11:28 am
DPF v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 2:23 am
Jindal Global University – Jindal Global Law School Grochowski, Mateusz, Freedom of Speech, Consumer Protection and the Duty to Contract (2023) in Ch. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
These U.S. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 11:02 am
Zazzle * Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Print-on-Demand Vendor–Atari v. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 9:29 am
It is also part of a broader legal shift towards accountability and consumer protection. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 11:58 am
Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 3:38 am
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has said facial recognition could create “mass surveillance of our public spaces, destroying any concept of privacy. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 9:01 pm
FTC Chair Lina Khan previewed this in June, stating that “The word ‘efficiency’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the antitrust statutes. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 4:00 am
Further, in US v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 8:46 am
Tershakovec v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:58 am
Among the many claims by the Zuberis were those fro fraud, fraudulent inducement, constructive fraud, negligence per se, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and civil conspiracy. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:57 am
In Bhutta v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:37 am
To get around this, Haywood argued that the court was blurring 230(c)(1)’s protection for leaving up content with 230(c)(2)(A)’s protection for removing content, citing Justice Thomas’ Malwarebytes statement. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
Given the cost of preparing the required reports, it is possible that some firms – especially those that are not worried about the adverse publicity or consumer or investor backlash – will opt to pay the penalty instead, though doing so may open them to reputation damage from nonprofit environmental groups, consumers, and pro-climate companies. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 1:58 pm
Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 12:39 pm
Instead, again, they cite to Brown Shoe Co. v. [read post]
