At the same time, China’s legal approach to sexual harassment in the workplace is being overhauled. Until now, the women’s protection law has only stipulated that victims of harassment have the right to complain to their employers. Going forward, employers must abide by certain affirmative obligations, including the establishment of internal policies that prohibit sexual harassment and of procedures that provide for timely handling of complaints. Failures to take these steps could lead to personal legal liability on the part of supervisors and other responsible staff.
According to Chinese media, the draft changes to the women’s protection law were the subject of more than 700,000 submissions during the public comments period. While views on the new legislation are surely not unanimous, it is reasonable to assume that there is considerable support for the changes. This in turn suggests that the Chinese authorities will be directed to meaningfully enforce the
…
Read More

It’s typically pointless to bring a 512(f) claim because the law makes it almost impossible to win. Plus, 512(f) plaintiffs have to consider the possibility of a costly fee shift against them.

The plaintiff in this case claims that the defendant’s takedown notices got it permanently banned in Reddit. Nevertheless, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s 512(f) suit was objectively unreasonable because:

  • the state law claims had been previously dismissed in state court.
  • “Plaintiff asserted 512(f) without apparently having any evidence to support the ‘knowingly’ component of the first element.” As I’ve discussed many times, 512(f) plaintiffs rarely possess a smoking gun piece of evidence to show defendant scienter at the time of filing, so the pleadings must necessarily rely on inferences and circumstantial evidence.
  • the plaintiff’s Reddit account got reinstated and shut down several more times, and the plaintiff admitted the subsequent account drama wasn’t due to the defendant.
…
Read More

This lawsuit involves troubling allegations that Facebook executives (allegedly, Nick Clegg, Nicola Mendelsohn, and Cristian Perrella) took bribes from OnlyFans-related entities to spike Facebook and Instagram posts that promoted competitors of OnlyFans. Allegedly, the spiking included naming the plaintiffs on the services’ lists of “dangerous individuals or organizations,” which then fed into GIFCT to block the plaintiffs on other sites too.

These allegations sound so fantastical that they are hard to believe, yet the plaintiffs have introduced evidence–including a whistleblower report–that was persuasive enough to Judge Alsup to defeat a motion to dismiss. You probably know by now that Judge Alsup gives the benefit of the doubt to plaintiffs on motions to dismiss, only to hammer them on summary judgment if their evidence doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. So I’m not reading too much yet into Judge Alsup’s decision, but it’s nevertheless a disappointing ruling for Facebook.

Section

…
Read More

More than a decade ago I wrote an article entitled “I Hate Alibaba” (it’s no longer still on the Internet but I still have it on my computer), voicing my concerns with foreign companies thinking they were safe sourcing through Alibaba. My concern at that time stemmed from the many calls and emails my law firm’s international dispute resolution attorneys get regarding really bad or never delivered product people had sourced through Alibaba.

In that now deleted article, I wrote the following:

Just back from China (Hong Kong, actually), where I saw a television interview with Jack Ma of Alibaba. He never fails to impress the hell out of me and every time I see him my first thought is BUY.

But then I think about all the harm Alibaba has caused to so many Western SMEs and I change my mind about calling my broker/brother. Alibaba makes the

…
Read More

Buentello v. Boebert, No. 1:21-cv-00147-DDD (D. Colo. Oct. 28, 2022)

The court summarizes:

on January 6, 2021, Plaintiff directed tweets at Defendant, criticizing public remarks Defendant made leading up to, during, and after the storming of the United States Capitol that occurred on that day. Defendant then blocked Plaintiff’s Twitter account from the @laurenboebert account…Defendant did not block Plaintiff from the @RepBoebert House account, and Plaintiff can fully view the @RepBoebert feed and participate in discussions originating from that account’s tweets.

The court concludes:

Whether it is wise for members of the United States Congress to block critical constituents from their social-media accounts is not for a court to say. The only question here is whether federal courts are authorized to legally forbid one from doing so in these circumstances…I conclude they are not…

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity and for lack of a judicially cognizable cause

…
Read More