Search for: "Force v. Facebook, Inc" Results 141 - 160 of 543
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Sep 2020, 1:10 am by Michael Douglas
On 14 September, Thawley J refused that application: Australian Information Commissioner v Facebook Inc (No 2) [2020] FCA 1307. [read post]
29 Aug 2020, 5:17 am by Eugene Volokh
.), Cameroon Ass'n of Victims of Ambazonia Terrorism Inc. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 6:59 am by Kristian Soltes
Department of Justice and a contingent of state attorneys general challenged AmEx’s anti-steering rules in a case that reached the Supreme Court in 2018 as Ohio v. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
In these cases, the law’s assumption about self-interested bargaining loses much of its force. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 9:17 am by INFORRM
Following the outcome of Schrems I, Schrems reformulated his complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) about data transfers arguing that the United States does not provide adequate protection as United States law requires Facebook Inc. to make the personal data transferred to it available to certain United States authorities, such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the data is used in a manner incompatible… [read post]
31 May 2020, 4:22 pm by INFORRM
Internet and Social Media The BBC had a piece “Facebook dominates cases of recorded social media grooming”. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 7:54 am by Kristian Soltes
Google Dangles Free Listings for Merchants on Its Google Shopping TabDigital Transactions News – April 21, 2020 Alphabet Inc. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 4:32 pm by Russell Knight
  You’ll need to list Facebook, Google and your spouse’s relatives. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 4:32 pm by Russell Knight
  You’ll need to list Facebook, Google and your spouse’s relatives. [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
Facebook Inc v Davis No.17-17486, the Ninth Circuit has found the Facebook tracking of users’ browsing habits, even when they were not logged into the service, may have violated Californian privacy law. [read post]