Search for: "IN RE: Google Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation" Results 41 - 60 of 135
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Aug 2017, 1:02 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 3601250, No. 15–15858 (9th Cir. [read post]
21 Aug 2017, 11:30 am by Venkat Balasubramani
” This particular agreement does not appear to fit neatly into any of those categories, in that at the time of sign-up, the user is presented with hyperlinks to bold text that states: By creating an Uber account, you agree to the TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am by INFORRM
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (2017 SCC 34). [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 4:00 am by Administrator
Civil Procedure/Technology: Worldwide Interlocutory Injunctions Google Inc. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 6:46 am by Graham Smith
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (28 June 2017). [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 6:46 am by Graham Smith
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (28 June 2017). [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 7:08 pm by Barry Sookman
Apr. 14, 2016) Privacy In Re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation 2016 WL 2593853 (N.D.Cal.May 5, 2016) Douez v. [read post]
2 May 2016, 9:20 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
 Joseph DiMona, Broadcast Music, Inc.: Safe harbor should be limited to innocent services; applied far too broadly. [read post]
2 May 2016, 8:54 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
   JC: Most litigation over knowledge standard—actual and red flag. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 12:07 pm by Jennifer Granick
Riana Pfefferkorn was an associate in the Internet Strategy & Litigation group at Wilson Sonsini, focusing on Internet, copyright, and privacy litigation and counseling. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am by David Kris
Stored Communications Act (SCA), which is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA),[9] has been interpreted by at least two U.S. courts to forbid production of stored data of certain types only where the data are stored in the United States.[10]  With respect to U.S. foreign intelligence surveillance, the rules are much more complex,[11] but unlike the Wiretap Act and the SCA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act[12] generally prohibits conduct only by persons… [read post]