You have no items in your shopping cart.

Internet Law and Practice in California

The only resource on Internet law and practice designed especially for California lawyers, this guide will help you advise your clients doing business online.

The only resource on Internet law and practice designed especially for California lawyers, this guide will help you advise your clients doing business online.

  • Intellectual property rights in cyberspace
  • Launching and operating a website
  • Electronic contracting; privacy issues
  • Licenses and development agreements
  • Advertising on the Internet
  • Cybersecurity
  • Tort and criminal liability, First Amendment issues
  • Jurisdiction; litigation issues; e-discovery
  • Sample attorney-drafted forms to save you time
Print BU33580

Package includes single user online access, 2 looseleaf print volumes (approx. 1000 pages), and Forms CD, updated July 2023

$ 696.00
  • Overview
  • Table of Contents
  • Forms CD Contents
  • Selected Developments
  • Authors
  • Filing Instructions
  • Page List
  • Specifications

The only resource on Internet law and practice designed especially for California lawyers, this guide will help you advise your clients doing business online.

  • Intellectual property rights in cyberspace
  • Launching and operating a website
  • Electronic contracting; privacy issues
  • Licenses and development agreements
  • Advertising on the Internet
  • Cybersecurity
  • Tort and criminal liability, First Amendment issues
  • Jurisdiction; litigation issues; e-discovery
  • Sample attorney-drafted forms to save you time


Copyright and the DMCA

    • A.  Introduction  1.1
    • B.  Subject Matter of Copyright Law
      • 1.  Generally  1.2
      • 2.  Special Subject Matter: Compilations  1.2A
      • 3.  Special Subject Matter: Music  1.3
      • 4.  Special Subject Matter: Characters  1.4
      • 5.  Special Subject Matter: Websites  1.4A
      • 6.  Special Subject Matter: Databases  1.4B
      • 7.  Special Subject Matter: Output of Computer Programs  1.4C
      • 8.  Special Subject Matter: Governmental Works  1.4D
    • C.  Creation and Term of Copyright  1.5
    • D.  Ownership of Copyrighted Work, Joint Works, and Works Made for Hire
      • 1.  Joint Works  1.6
      • 2.  Works Made for Hire  1.7
    • E.  Rights of Copyright Holder  1.8
      • 1.  Reproduction Rights  1.9
      • 2.  Distribution Rights  1.10
      • 3.  Performance Rights  1.11
        • a.  Who “Performs” the Work?  1.11A
        • b.  Pre-1972 Sound Recordings  1.11B
      • 4.  Display Rights  1.12
    • F.  Copyright Notice  1.13
    • G.  FBI Anti-Piracy Warning Seal  1.14
    • H.  Copyright Registration
      • 1.  Advantages of Registration  1.15
      • 2.  Registration Procedures; Standing to Sue  1.16
      • 3.  When to Register  1.17
    • I.  Preregistration  1.18
    • J.  Challenging Validity of a Copyright Registration  1.18A
    • K.  Transfer of Copyrights
      • 1.  Generally  1.19
      • 2.  Form: Copyright Assignment  1.20
      • 3.  Form: U.S. Copyright Office Form DCS (Document Cover Sheet)  1.21
    • L.  Infringement
      • 1.  Generally  1.22
      • 2.  Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Liability
        • a.  Generally  1.23
        • b.  Direct Infringement; Volitional Act Requirement  1.24
        • c.  Contributory Infringement  1.25
          • (1)  Inducement  1.26
          • (2)  Material Contribution  1.27
            • (a)  Online Service Providers  1.27A
            • (b)  Payment Processors  1.27B
          • (3)  Site and Facilities Test  1.28
        • d.  Vicarious Infringement  1.29
      • 3.  Bootlegging  1.29A
      • 4.  Selected Defenses
        • a.  Statute of Limitations  1.30
        • b.  Laches  1.31
        • c.  Express License  1.31A
        • d.  Implied License  1.32
        • e.  Estoppel  1.33
        • f.  De Minimis Use  1.33A
        • g.  Fraud on the Copyright Office  1.33B
        • h.  Abandonment  1.33C
      • 5.  Safe Harbor for Certain Copies of Computer Programs  1.34
      • 6.  Remedies  1.35
      • 7.  Copyright Small Claims [Deleted]  1.35A
      • 8.  Sovereign Immunity  1.36
      • 9.  Compulsory Licenses
        • a.  Broadcast Television  1.37
        • b.  Sound Recordings; Digital Music Rights  1.38
    • M.  Fair Use
      • 1.  Introduction  1.39
      • 2.  Purpose and Character of Use  1.40
        • a.  Transformative Use  1.41
          • (1)  Human-Made Uses
            • (a)  Parody/Satire   1.42
            • (b)  Appropriation Art  1.43
            • (c)  Digital Music Sampling  1.44
            • (d)  News Reporting  1.45
            • (e)  Reaction Videos  1.45A
            • (f)  Thumbnails to Sell Legal Copies  1.45B
            • (g)  Memes  1.45C
            • (h)  Video Games  1.45D
            • (i)  Video Re-Edits  1.45E
          • (2)  Technological Fair Use
            • (a)  Time- and Space-Shifting  1.46
            • (b)  Search Engines  1.47
            • (c)  Conversion of Text for Data Mining  1.48
            • (d)  Reverse Engineering  1.49
            • (e)  Software User Interfaces  1.49A
        • b.  Commercial Use  1.50
      • 3.  Bad Faith  1.50A
      • 4.  Nature of Copyrighted Work  1.51
        • a.  Informational Versus Creative Inquiry  1.52
        • b.   Published or Unpublished  1.53
      • 5.  Amount and Substantiality of Portion of Work Used  1.54
      • 6.  Effect of Use on Market  1.55
      • 7.  Fair Use as a Bar to Foreign Judgments  1.55A
    • N.  First Sale  1.56
    • O.  Family Entertainment and Copyright Act  1.56A
    • A.  Introduction  1.57
    • B.  Status of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings  1.58
    • C.  Anti-Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures
      • 1.  Anti-Circumvention Prohibitions (17 USC §1201)  1.59
      • 2.  Copyright Management Information (17 USC §1202)  1.60
      • 3.  Exceptions to Anti-Circumvention Prohibitions  1.61
      • 4.  Remedies  1.62
    • D.  Limitations of Liability for Online Service Providers—Infringement Safe Harbors  1.63
      • 1.  General Conditions for Safe Harbors
        • a.  Service Provider  1.64
        • b.  Repeat Infringer Policy  1.65
          • (1)  Adoption of Policy  1.66
          • (2)  Informing Users of Policy  1.67
          • (3)  Reasonably Implement the Policy  1.68
        • c.  Interference With Standard Technical Measures  1.69
        • d.  Designating Agent to Receive Notifications  1.70
        • e.  No Duty to Police or Monitor  1.71
      • 2.  Transitory Digital Network Communications Safe Harbor (17 USC §512(a))  1.72
      • 3.  System Caching Safe Harbor (17 USC §512(b))  1.73
      • 4.  Safe Harbor for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users (17 USC §512(c))
        • a.  Generally  1.74
        • b.  Storage at Direction of User  1.75
        • c.  Lack of Knowledge (17 USC §512(c)(1)(A))  1.76
          • (1)  Actual Knowledge  1.77
          • (2)  “Red Flag” Knowledge  1.78
          • (3)  Willful Blindness  1.79
        • d.  Right and Ability to Control (17 USC §512(c)(1)(B))
          • (1)  Right and Ability to Control  1.80
          • (2)  Direct Financial Benefit  1.81
        • e.  Expeditious Removal or Disabling Access to Infringing Material (17 USC §512(c)(1)(C))  1.82
        • f.  Notification of Claimed Infringement (17 USC §512(c)(3))
          • (1)  Requirements for Notifications; “Good Faith Belief”  1.83
          • (2)  Safeguards Against Fraudulent Infringement Claims  1.83A
        • g.  Counter-Notification by Subscriber; Restoration of Material  1.84
        • h.  Checklist: Notice and Take-Down Checklist  1.85
      • 5.  Information Location Tools Safe Harbor (17 USC §512(d))  1.86
    • E.  Subpoena Power (17 USC §512(h))  1.87
    • F.  Impact on Internet Service Providers  1.88
    • G.  Checklist: Company DMCA Compliance Policy  1.89


Patents and Trade Secrets

    • A.  Introduction  2.1
    • B.  What Is a Patent?  2.2
    • C.  What Is Patentable; Types of Patents  2.3
    • D.  Term of Patents  2.4
    • E.  Additional Requirements for Patentability
      • 1.  Overview  2.5
      • 2.  Origination  2.6
      • 3.  Utility  2.7
      • 4.  Novelty  2.8
      • 5.  Nonobviousness  2.9
    • F.  Patent Applications
      • 1.  Overview of Patent Application Procedures  2.10
      • 2.  Specification; Enablement; Best Mode  2.11
      • 3.  Claims  2.12
      • 4.  Statutory Time Bars  2.13
    • G.  “First-to-File” Versus “First-to-Invent”; Other International Issues  2.14
    • H.  Transferring Patents
      • 1.  Introduction  2.15
      • 2.  Form: Patent Assignment  2.16
    • I.  Litigation Issues  2.16A
    • J.  Alternatives to Litigation  2.17
    • K.  Special Topics for Internet Businesses
      • 1.  Business Method Patents
        • a.  What Is a Business Method?  2.18
        • b.  Business Method Patents in the Courts
          • (1)  State Street: Business Methods Subject to Same Patentability Requirements   2.18A
          • (2)  Bilski: Machine-or-Transformation Test  2.18B
          • (3)  Alice-Mayo: Two-Step Test for Patent Eligibility  2.18C
          • (4)  Post-Alice Examples  2.18D
        • c.  USPTO Examiner Instructions re Business Method Patent Applications  2.18E
        • d.  Practical Guidance  2.18F
      • 2.  Software Patents  2.19
      • 3.  The Internet of Things   2.19A
    • A.  Introduction  2.20
    • B.  Definition of Trade Secret
      • 1.  Statutory Definition  2.21
      • 2.  Examples of Trade Secrets  2.22
      • 3.  Computer Source and Object Code  2.22A
      • 4.  Recipes, Manufacturing Processes  2.22B
      • 5.  Customer Lists  2.23
    • C.  Loss of Trade Secret Protection  2.24
    • D.  Protection of Trade Secrets  2.25
      • 1.  Departing Employees  2.26
      • 2.  Practical Safeguards
        • a.  Firewalls and Encryption  2.27
        • b.  Physical Security  2.28
        • c.  Managing Documents and Files  2.29
    • E.  Sample Company Policy on Trade Secret Protection
      • 1.  Introduction  2.30
      • 2.  Form: Company Policy on Trade Secret Protection  2.31
    • F.  Confidentiality Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  2.32
      • 2.  Form: Confidentiality Agreement  2.33
    • G.  Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
      • 1.  Asserting Claim of Misappropriation Under UTSA  2.34
      • 2.  Defenses  2.35
      • 3.  Damages  2.36
      • 4.  Privilege and Disclosures Due to Litigation  2.37
      • 5.  Economic Espionage Act of 1996  2.38
      • 6.  Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016  2.39


Domain Names and Trademark Issues

    • A.  Introduction  3.1
    • B.  Selecting Domain Name and Suffix
      • 1.  Domain Name  3.2
      • 2.  Suffix (Top-Level Domain Name)  3.3
      • 3.  ICANN gTLD Trademark Clearinghouse  3.3A
    • C.  Due Diligence
      • 1.  Domain Name as Trademark  3.4
      • 2.  Where to Look? Registered and Unregistered Trademark Searches  3.5
    • D.  Registration of Domain Name
      • 1.  Registration Procedures  3.6
      • 2.  Purchasing Registered Domain Name
        • a.  How to Purchase Registered Domain Name  3.7
        • b.  Form: Domain Name Purchase Agreement  3.8
    • E.  Maintaining and Preventing Loss of Domain Name  3.9
    • F.  Transferring Ownership of Domain Names  3.10
    • G.  Infringing Domain Names
      • 1.  Bringing Claim of Infringement  3.11
      • 2.  Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)  3.12
        • a.  Elements of UDRP Claim  3.13
        • b.  Selection of Arbitrators  3.14
        • c.  Procedure Under UDRP  3.15
        • d.  Damages and Fees  3.16
        • e.  Model Form of UDRP Complaint
          • (1)  Introduction  3.17
          • (2)  Form: UDRP Complaint  3.18
        • f.  Model Form of UDRP Response
          • (1)  Introduction  3.19
          • (2)  Form: UDRP Response  3.20
        • g.  Appeals  3.21
      • 3.  Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act  3.22
        • a.  Elements of Cause of Action  3.23
        • b.  ACPA Remedies  3.24
      • 4.  Whether to Proceed Under UDRP or ACPA?  3.25
    • A.  Introduction  3.26
    • B.  Definitions of Trademarks, Service Marks, Collective Marks, Certification Marks, Trade Dress, and Trade Names  3.27
    • C.  Characterization of Marks  3.28
    • D.  Priority and Limitations to Priority  3.29
    • E.  Registration Procedure
      • 1.  Why Federal Registration?  3.30
      • 2.  Common Law and State Trademark Rights  3.31
      • 3.  Unregistrable Trademarks  3.32
      • 4.  Trademark Searches  3.33
      • 5.  Principal and Supplemental Registers  3.34
      • 6.  Intent-to-Use Applications  3.35
      • 7.  Form of Application  3.36
      • 8.  Application Procedure  3.37
      • 9.  Contents of Application  3.38
        • a.  Applicant Information  3.39
        • b.  Verification  3.40
        • c.  Identification and Classification of Goods and Services; Filing Fees  3.41
        • d.  Bases for Filing  3.42
        • e.  Drawing Requirement  3.43
        • f.  Description of Mark  3.44
      • 10.  Registration of Domain Names as Trademarks
        • a.  Requirements  3.45
        • b.  Reasons for Refusal of Registration of Domain Names  3.46
        • c.  Hashtags  3.46A
      • 11.  Trade Names  3.47
    • F.  Madrid Protocol  3.48
    • G.  Grant or Denial of Registration
      • 1.  Opposition, Cancellation, or Registration  3.49
      • 2.  Appeals From Denials of Registration  3.50
    • H.  Use of Trademark Symbol  3.51
    • I.  Duration and Renewal  3.52
    • J.  Preservation of Trademark Rights  3.53
    • K.  Trademark Licensing  3.54
      • 1.  Form: Trademark Guidelines  3.55
      • 2.  Form: Trademark License Agreement  3.56
    • L.  Assignments of Trademarks
      • 1.  Generally  3.57
      • 2.  Form: Trademark Assignment  3.58
      • 3.  Form: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Cover Sheet (Trademarks Only)  3.59
    • M.  Violations of Trademark Rights
      • 1.  Trademark Infringement  3.60
      • 2.  Contributory Trademark Infringement  3.60A
      • 3.  False Designation or Description  3.61
      • 4.  ACPA  3.62
      • 5.  Remedies for Trademark Infringement  3.63
      • 6.  Defenses to Trademark Infringement  3.64
      • 7.  Dilution of Famous Mark  3.65
        • a.  Factors Bearing on Whether Mark Is Famous  3.66
        • b.  Cybersquatting and Dilution  3.67
      • 8.  Remedies and Defenses to Anti-Dilution Claims  3.68
      • 9.  Sample Cease and Desist Letter
        • a.  Introduction  3.69
        • b.  Form: Sample Cease and Desist Letter  3.70
    • A.  Introduction  3.71
    • B.  Nominative Fair Use  3.72
    • C.  Initial Interest Confusion Test  3.73
    • D.  Protection of Fanciful Marks  3.74
    • E.  Misspellings of Trademarks and Direct Competitors  3.75
    • F.  “English Words”  3.76
    • A.  Introduction  3.77
    • B.  Website User Interfaces  3.78
    • C.  Trade Dress Infringement  3.79
      • 1.  Nonfunctionality
        • a.  Overview of the Doctrine  3.80
        • b.  Functionality and Nonfunctionality in the Courts
          • (1)  Outside the Ninth Circuit  3.80A
          • (2)  Ninth Circuit  3.81
        • c.  Doctrine of Aesthetic Functionality  3.82
        • d.  Functionality and Website User Interfaces  3.83
      • 2.  Inherent Distinctiveness or Secondary Meaning
        • a.  Inherent Distinctiveness Test  3.84
        • b.  Product Designs and Product Packaging  3.85
        • c.  Website User Interfaces: Product Design or Product Packaging?  3.86
      • 3.  Likelihood of Confusion in Trade Dress  3.87


Legal Issues Concerning Artificial Intelligence

    • A.  What Is Artificial Intelligence?  3A.1
    • B.  Generative AI Systems  3A.2
    • C.  Generative AI Applications  3A.3
    • D.  Generative AI Issues   3A.4
    • A.  Overview  3A.5
    • B.  Ownership of Generative AI Output  3A.6
    • C.  Copyright  3A.7
      • 1.  Copyright Infringement by Training Data  3A.8
      • 2.  Output of Generative AI  3A.9
    • D.  Patent  3A.10
    • E.  Right of Publicity  3A.11
    • F.  Ethics   3A.12
    • G.  Privacy  3A.13
    • H.  Gender and Racial Bias  3A.14
    • I.  Federal Trade Commission  3A.15
    • J.  NIST  3A.16
    • K.  White House AI Bill of Rights  3A.17
    • L.  Potential Future Federal and State Laws; ABA Resolution
      • 1.  Federal Initiatives  3A.18
      • 2.  Proposed California Legislation  3A.19
      • 3.  ABA Resolution  3A.20
    • M.  European Union Laws re AI
      • 1.  Proposed New EU AI Law  3A.21
      • 2.  Article 22 of EU’s General Data Protection Regulation  3A.22


Human Resources

    • A.  Introduction  4.1
    • B.  Ethical Considerations  4.2
    • C.  “At Will” Employment  4.3
    • D.  Offer Letter to Prospective Employee
      • 1.  Introduction  4.4
      • 2.  Form: Offer Letter to Prospective Employee  4.5
    • E.  Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreements
      • 1.  Employee Confidentiality Agreements  4.6
      • 2.  DTSA Notice  4.6A
      • 3.  Employee Inventions  4.7
        • a.  Federal “Work for Hire” Doctrine  4.8
        • b.  Employer Ownership of Employee Inventions Under State Law  4.9
      • 4.  Invention Assignment Agreements  4.10
      • 5.  Form: Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement  4.11
    • F.  Employee Overtime—Special Rules for Computer Programmers  4.12
    • A.  Overview of Independent Contractor Issues  4.13
    • B.  Classification of Independent Contractors
      • 1.  Exempt Versus Nonexempt Employees  4.14
      • 2.  Dynamex and Statutory Enactments: The ABC Test  4.14A
      • 3.  Proposed DOL Regulations  4.14B
      • 4.  Borello Right-to-Control Test  4.15
      • 5.  Dynamex ABC Test  4.16
      • 6.  Independent Contractor Classification Analysis; Penalties for Violation  4.17
    • C.  Intellectual Property Issues in Independent Contractor Relationships  4.18
    • D.  Form: Independent Contractor Consulting Agreement  4.19
    • E.  Independent Contractor Nondisclosure Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  4.20
      • 2.  Form: Nondisclosure Agreement  4.21
    • A.  Introduction  4.22
    • B.  Form: Advisory Board Letter Agreement  4.23


Website and App Development; Disability Accommodation Issues

    • A.  Introduction  5.1
    • B.  Assignment of Intellectual Property by Company Founder  5.2
    • C.  Form: Agreement for Transfer and Assignment of Intellectual Property  5.3
    • A.  Introduction  5.4
    • B.  Ethical Considerations  5.5
    • C.  Preparing for Negotiations  5.6
    • D.  Types of Website and App Developers  5.7
      • 1.  Freelancers  5.8
      • 2.  Website and Mobile App Development Specialists  5.9
      • 3.  General Technology Companies  5.10
    • E.  Understanding Issues of Ownership
      • 1.  Conflicting Ownership Interests  5.11
      • 2.  Why a Website or App Probably Is Not a “Work Made for Hire”  5.12
      • 3.  Domain Name Registration and Ownership  5.13
    • F.  Drafting Website and Mobile App Development Agreement  5.14
      • 1.  Responsibilities of Parties  5.15
      • 2.  Deliverables and Timelines for Delivery  5.16
      • 3.  Ownership and License Grants  5.17
        • a.  Ownership  5.18
        • b.  License Rights  5.19
        • c.  Confidentiality  5.20
      • 4.  Representations and Warranties of Developer  5.21
      • 5.  Ongoing Obligations of Developer  5.22
    • G.  Website and Mobile App Development Agreements
      • 1.  Independent Contractor Agreements  5.23
      • 2.  Form of Website Development Agreement
        • a.  Introduction  5.24
        • b.  Form: Website Development Agreement  5.25
    • A.  Federal and California Statutes  5.27
    • B.  Website Accessibility Case Law  5.28
    • C.  DOJ Guidance and Enforcement Efforts  5.29
    • D.  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)  5.30


Hosting and Related Services; Cloud Computing

    • A.  Introduction  6.1
    • B.  Negotiating Hosting Agreement  6.2
    • C.  Key Hosting Agreement Terms
      • 1.  Responsibilities of Host  6.3
        • a.  Website Hosting  6.4
        • b.  Monitoring  6.5
        • c.  Access to Software  6.6
        • d.  Content Uploading and Maintenance  6.7
        • e.  Data Collection and Reporting  6.8
      • 2.  Responsibilities of Customer  6.9
    • D.  Warranties  6.10
    • E.  Form of Hosting Services Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  6.11
      • 2.  Form: Hosting Services Agreement  6.12
    • A.  Introduction  6.13
    • B.  Decision to Co-Locate  6.14
    • C.  Co-Location Services and Customer Responsibilities
      • 1.  Overview  6.15
      • 2.  Customer Responsibilities  6.16
      • 3.  Provider Warranties  6.17
    • D.  Form of Co-Location Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  6.18
      • 2.  Form: Co-Location Agreement  6.19
    • E.  Equipment Considerations  6.20
    • A.  Introduction  6.21
    • B.  Use of Service Level Agreements Generally
      • 1.  Content  6.22
      • 2.  When to Request Service Level Agreement  6.23
      • 3.  Monitoring and Enforcement of Service Level Agreement Terms  6.24
    • C.  Standard Service Level Agreement Terms
      • 1.  Availability; Uptime  6.25
      • 2.  Service Levels  6.26
        • a.  Low-Priority Requests  6.27
        • b.  Medium-Priority Requests  6.28
        • c.  High-Priority Requests  6.29
      • 3.  Response Times and Response Actions  6.30
      • 4.  Service Credits and Chronic Problems  6.31
      • 5.  Additional Terms  6.32
        • a.  Customer Support  6.33
        • b.  Performance Measurement  6.34
        • c.  Reporting  6.35
    • D.  Service Level Agreement Forms
      • 1.  Sample Short Form Service Level Agreement
        • a.  Introduction  6.36
        • b.  Form: Short Form Service Level Agreement  6.37
      • 2.  Sample Website Hosting Service Level Agreement
        • a.  Introduction  6.38
        • b.  Form: Website Hosting Service Level Agreement  6.39
    • A.  Introduction  6.40
    • B.  Obtaining Technical Support from Vendors  6.41
    • C.  Key Issues in Obtaining Support From Vendors
      • 1.  Upgrades and New Versions  6.42
      • 2.  Support Services  6.43
      • 3.  Training and Help Desk Support  6.44
    • D.  Technical Support and Maintenance Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  6.45
      • 2.  Form: Technical Support and Maintenance Agreement  6.46
    • E.  Providing Technical Support to Customers  6.47
    • F.  Basic Technical Support Exhibit
      • 1.  Introduction  6.48
      • 2.  Form: Basic Technical Support Exhibit  6.49
  • V.  Cloud Computing
    • A.  Introduction  6.50
    • B.  Statutory Limitations  6.51
    • C.  Data Security, Privacy, and Confidentiality
      • 1.  Overview  6.52
      • 2.  Access to Data  6.53
      • 3.  Voluntary or Compelled Disclosure
        • a.  General Considerations  6.54
        • b.  National Security Letters  6.55
      • 4.  Data Security  6.56
      • 5.  Duty of Confidentiality  6.57
    • D.  Service Levels  6.58
    • E.  Indemnification, Warranty, and Liability  6.59
    • F.  Data Portability and Deletion  6.60
    • G.  Guidance for Specific Industries  6.61
    • H.  Variations on Cloud Computing  6.62
    • I.  Sample Cloud Services Agreement  6.63
    • J.  Security Addendum  6.64
    • K.  Form: Security Addendum  6.65


Electronic Contracting

    • A.  Shrink-Wrap Software Licenses  7.2
    • B.  Click-Wrap Agreements  7.3
    • C.  Browse-Wrap Agreements  7.4
    • D.  Scroll-Wrap Agreements and Sign-in-Wrap Agreements  7.4A
    • E.  Embedded Links to Other Documents  7.4B
    • F.  Issues Related to Minors  7.4C
  • III.  E-SIGN
    • A.  Introduction  7.5
    • B.  Electronic Signatures  7.6
    • C.  Consumer Protection Features  7.7
    • D.  Electronic Record Retention  7.8
    • A.  Overview; Federal Preemption Issue  7.9
    • B.  Consent to Conduct Transactions Electronically Required  7.10
    • C.  Authentication of Electronic Signatures  7.10A
  • V.  CALIFORNIA COURT RULE 2.257  7.11
    • A.  Six Basic Principles  7.15
    • B.  Additional Practical Considerations  7.16
    • C.  Amendments  7.17


Terms of Use; Online Agreements; Linking; Downloading; Social Networking

    • A.  Drafting Considerations  8.2
    • B.  Form: Website Terms of Use  8.3
    • A.  Introduction  8.4
    • B.  Form: Online End-User Software License Agreement  8.5
    • C.  Online Beta User Evaluation Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  8.6
      • 2.  Form: Online Beta User Evaluation Agreement  8.7
    • D.  Open Source Licensing
      • 1.  Introduction  8.8
      • 2.  Form: Open Source Software License Agreement  8.9
    • E.  Software Evaluation License Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  8.10
      • 2.  Form: Evaluation License Agreement  8.11
    • F.  Online Software Developer Toolkit License Agreement
      • 1.  Introduction  8.12
      • 2.  Form: Online Software Developer Toolkit License Agreement  8.13
    • A.  Introduction  8.14
    • B.  Linking and Framing
      • 1.  Generally  8.15
      • 2.  Copyright Infringement Issues  8.16
      • 3.  Potential Liability for Trespass to Chattels  8.17
    • C.  Form: Linking Agreement  8.18
    • A.  Generally  8.19
    • B.  Copyright Infringement Issues  8.20
    • C.  Music on the Internet
      • 1.  Introduction  8.21
      • 2.  Technologies  8.22
      • 3.  Federal Statutes  8.23
        • a.  Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA)  8.24
        • b.  Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA)  8.25
        • c.  No Electronic Theft Law  8.26
        • d.  Internet Piracy (Pen C §653aa)  8.26A
        • e.  The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act  8.26B
      • 4.  Case Law  8.27
      • 5.  RIAA Litigation Strategy  8.28
    • A.  Overview  8.29
    • B.  Social Networking and the Law
      • 1.  Federal Safe Harbors  8.30
      • 2.  Florida and Texas Regulatory Efforts  8.30A
      • 3.  California Social Media Legislation  8.30B
    • C.  Copyright Issues
      • 1.  Infringement; Fair Use  8.31
      • 2.  Practice Guidelines  8.31A
    • D.  Privacy Issues
      • 1.  Generally  8.32
      • 2.  FTC Actions Concerning Privacy of User Information on Social Networks  8.32A
      • 3.  California Privacy Laws Protecting Social Media Users’ Privacy  8.32B
    • E.  Need for Valid End-User License Agreements (EULAs)  8.33
    • F.  Social Media in the Workplace  8.34
    • G.  Violation of Nonsolicitation Agreements  8.35


Privacy Law and Privacy Policies

    • A.  How Businesses Obtain Consumer Information Online
      • 1.  Direct and Indirect Disclosure  9.3
      • 2.  Cookies  9.4
      • 3.  Pixels  9.5
      • 4.  Other Tracking Technologies  9.6
      • 5.  Adware  9.6A
      • 6.  Spyware  9.6B
      • 7.  Phishing  9.6C
    • B.  Federal Privacy Laws
      • 1.  United States Constitution  9.7
      • 2.  Federal Legislation and FTC Initiatives  9.8
        • a.  Federal Trade Commission Initiatives  9.8A
          • (1)  FTC Actions Concerning Privacy Policies  9.9
          • (2)  FTC Actions Concerning Data Security  9.9A
          • (3)  The FTC’s “Red Flags Rule”  9.9B
          • (4)  FTC Actions Concerning Unwanted Adware  9.9C
          • (5)  The Internet of Things  9.9D
          • (6)   FTC Guidelines for Data Security  9.9E
        • b.  Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
          • (1)  Privacy Aspects of HIPAA and Supporting Regulations  9.10
          • (2)  Protected Health Information, Contract Requirements  9.11
        • c.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  9.12
        • d.  Right to Financial Privacy Act  9.13
        • e.  Computer Fraud and Abuse Act  9.14
        • f.  Electronic Communications Privacy Act  9.15
        • g.  Video Privacy Protection Act  9.15A
        • h.  Fair Credit Reporting Act  9.15B
        • i.  Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights   9.15C
        • j.  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  9.15D
    • C.  California Privacy Laws
      • 1.  California Constitution
        • a.  Constitutional Right of Privacy  9.16
        • b.  Standing Issue in Privacy Litigation  9.16A
      • 2.  Common Law Right of Privacy  9.17
      • 3.  California Legislation  9.18
        • a.  California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (CC §§1798.100–1798.199.100)  9.18A
        • b.  California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA)   9.18B
        • c.  Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) (Bus & P C §§22575–22579)
          • (1)  Privacy Policy Posting Requirement  9.19
          • (2)  Required Contents of Privacy Policy  9.20
          • (3)  Failure to Comply With Act  9.21
        • d.  California Attorney General’s Recommended Best Practices for Mobile App Developers  9.21A
        • e.  “Anti-Paparazzi” Statute  9.21B
        • f.  California Financial Information Privacy Act  9.22
        • g.  California Right to Financial Privacy Act (Govt C §§7460–7493)  9.23
        • h.  Song-Beverly Credit Card Act  9.23A
        • i.  Required Notice of Security Breaches
          • (1)  Civil Code Provisions  9.24
          • (2)  Potential Safe Harbor  9.25
          • (3)  Obligation to Maintain Security  9.25A
        • j.  Civil Code §1798.83  9.26
        • k.  Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act (Bus & P C §§22947–22947.6)  9.26A
        • l.  California Electronic Communications Privacy Act  9.26B
        • m.  Student Online Personal Information Protection Act  9.26C
        • n.  Unfair Competition Law  9.27
        • o.  “Revenge Porn”  9.27A
        • p.  Genetic Information Privacy Act  9.27B
    • D.  California Reproductive Privacy Act, 2022 Amendments  9.27C
    • E.  Other State Consumer Data Privacy Laws  9.27D
    • F.  Other State Data Security Laws  9.27E
    • G.  Special Legal Protections for Children  9.28
      • 1.  Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)  9.29
        • a.  Application of COPPA  9.30
        • b.  Requirements for Online Collection of Information From Children  9.31
        • c.  Parental Consent  9.32
        • d.  FTC Enforcement Actions Under COPPA  9.33
        • e.  State Enforcement Actions Under COPPA  9.33A
        • f.  Safe Harbor Under COPPA  9.34
      • 2.   Final FTC Children’s Online Protection Act Rule  9.34A
      • 3.  Dot-Kids Act [Deleted]  9.35
      • 4.  FTC’s Children’s Privacy Website  9.36
      • 5.  California Legislation  9.36A
        • a.  Prohibition on Certain Advertising to Minors (Bus & P C §22580)  9.36B
        • b.  “Eraser Button” Law  9.36C
        • c.  California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC)  9.36D
    • H.  European Union Rules and Regulation
      • 1.  EU Data Protection Directive [Deleted]  9.37
      • 2.  EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)  9.37A
      • 3.  UK Age-Appropriate Design Code   9.37B
      • 4.  Data Transfers  9.38
    • A.  Need for Privacy Policies  9.39
    • B.  Content of Privacy Policies  9.40
    • C.  Enforceability of Privacy Policies  9.41
    • D.  Additional Resources  9.42
    • E.  Privacy Policy
      • 1.  Introduction  9.43
      • 2.  Form: Privacy Policy  9.44


E-Commerce Transactions; Tax and Insurance Issues

    • A.  Introduction  10.1
    • B.  Electronic Contracting  10.2
    • C.  Electronic Payment Services
      • 1.  Credit Cards  10.3
      • 2.  Debit Cards  10.4
      • 3.  Internet Checks  10.5
      • 4.  Virtual Currency  10.5A
      • 5.  Blockchain Technology  10.5B
      • 6.  Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)  10.5C
      • 7.  Cryptocurrency Offerings and the SEC  10.5D
      • 8.  Other Electronic Payment Services: Fintech  10.6
    • D.  Additional Payment and Security Issues  10.7
      • 1.  Secure Transaction Processing Software  10.8
      • 2.  Fraud Prevention Tools  10.9
      • 3.  Phone and Fax Orders  10.10
      • 4.  Security Certificates  10.11
      • 5.   Purchases by Children  10.11A
    • E.  Shopping Cart Services
      • 1.  Overview  10.12
      • 2.  Evaluating Shopping Cart Services  10.13
    • F.  Sample Website or App End User Payment Terms
      • 1.  Introduction  10.14
      • 2.  Form: Sample Clauses re Payment of Subscription Fees  10.15
    • G.  FTC’s Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule  10.16
    • H.  Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act  10.16A
    • I.  Subscription Offers: Business and Professions Code §17602  10.16B
    • J.  Online Distributors and Products Liability  10.16C
    • K.  Prompt Shipping Requirements  10.16D
    • L.  INFORM Consumers Act  10.16E
    • A.  Formulation of E-Commerce Tax Policy  10.17
      • 1.  International Tax Policy  10.18
      • 2.  United States Federal Tax Policy
        • a.  Role of Treasury Department  10.19
        • b.  The Internet Tax Freedom Act  10.20
        • c.  The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement  10.20A
      • 3.  California Sales and Use Tax Policy  10.21
    • B.  Sales and Use Taxes
      • 1.  General Principles  10.22
      • 2.  Constitutional Restrictions; South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc.  10.23
      • 3.  Sales by California E-Businesses to Out-of-State Residents  10.23A
      • 4.  California Sales and Use Taxes: General Rules  10.24
      • 5.  The “Amazon Tax”: Out-of-State Retailers With In-State Agents  10.24A
      • 6.  Post-Wayfair Sales and Use Tax Obligations of Out-of-State Retailers  10.25
      • 7.  California Sales and Use Tax Treatment of Software Sales and Related Services  10.26
    • A.  Introduction  10.27
    • B.  Commercial Form General Liability Insurance  10.28
      • 1.  Loss of Tangible Property: Is Computer Data “Tangible Property?”  10.29
      • 2.  Loss of Tangible Property: Has There Been a “Loss”?  10.30
      • 3.  “Physical Loss or Damage”  10.31
      • 4.  Intellectual Property Infringement  10.32
    • C.  Business Interruption Coverage  10.33
    • D.  Industry Response  10.34
    • E.  Cyberinsurance  10.35
    • F.  Practical Advice  10.36


Strategic Alliances

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  11.1
    • A.  Introduction  11.4
    • B.  Form: Strategic Alliance Agreement  11.5
    • A.  Introduction  11.6
    • B.  Form: Co-Branding Agreement  11.7


Software License Agreements

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  12.1
    • A.  Exclusive Licenses  12.2
    • B.  Nonexclusive Licenses  12.3
    • C.  Scope of License
      • 1.  Scope of Rights Granted  12.4
      • 2.  Number of End Users  12.4A
    • D.  Payment Structures  12.5
    • A.  Introduction  12.6
    • B.  Form: Software License Agreement  12.7
    • A.  General Considerations
      • 1.  Restrictions on Scope or Field of Use  12.8
      • 2.  Performance Milestones; Minimum Royalties  12.9
    • B.  Form: Exclusivity Clause  12.10
    • A.  Introduction  12.11
    • B.  Executory Contracts and Bankruptcy Code §365(n)  12.12
    • C.  Drafting Considerations  12.13


Software Development Agreements

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  13.1
    • A.  Introduction  13.4
    • B.  Form: Software Test and Evaluation Agreement  13.5


Content Clearances, Licensing, and Fair Use

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  14.1
    • A.  Public Domain  14.5
    • B.  Fair Use  14.6
    • A.  Individual Release (Videotape of Testimonial)
      • 1.  Introduction  14.9
      • 2.  Form: Endorsement Agreement  14.10
    • B.  Still Photograph License
      • 1.  Introduction  14.11
      • 2.  Form: Still Photograph License  14.12
    • C.  Reprint Rights License
      • 1.  Introduction  14.13
      • 2.  Form: Digital Reprint Rights License  14.14
    • D.  Streaming Video License
      • 1.  Introduction  14.15
      • 2.  Form: Streaming Video License  14.16
    • E.  Special Issues in Music Licensing  14.17
    • F.  Creative Commons and Other Innovative Licensing Solutions  14.18


Source Code Escrows

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  15.1


Financing an Online Business

    • A.  Introduction  16.1
    • B.  Equity Versus Debt
      • 1.  Equity  16.2
      • 2.  Debt  16.3
    • C.  Sources of Equity Funding  16.4
      • 1.  Founders, Friends, and Family  16.5
      • 2.  “Angel” Investors  16.6
      • 3.  Venture Capital and Other Institutional Investors  16.7
    • D.  Structure of Venture Capital Financings  16.8
    • E.  Venture Capital Financing Term Sheet
      • 1.  Introduction  16.9
      • 2.  Form: Term Sheet for Preferred Stock Financing  16.10
    • A.  Introduction  16.11
    • B.  Types of Debt Financing  16.12
      • 1.  Working Capital Loans  16.13
      • 2.  Term Loans  16.14
      • 3.  SBA Loans  16.15
      • 4.  Lease Financings  16.16
      • 5.  Corporate Credit Cards  16.17
      • 6.  Convertible Debt  16.18
      • 7.  Customer Advances  16.19
    • C.  Qualifying for Loan  16.20
    • D.  Elements of Simple Loan Transaction
      • 1.  Overview  16.21
      • 2.  Usury Issues for Non-Bank Lenders  16.22
    • E.  Loan Agreement and Promissory Note  16.23
      • 1.  Form: Loan Agreement  16.24
      • 2.  Form: Promissory Note  16.25
    • F.  Security Interests in Intellectual Property Collateral
      • 1.  Generally  16.26
      • 2.  Security Interests in Copyrights  16.27
      • 3.  Security Interests in Patents  16.28
      • 4.  Security Interests in Trademarks  16.29
      • 5.  Security Interests in Domain Names  16.30
      • 6.  Security Interests in Trade Secrets  16.31
      • 7.  Form of Security Agreement (Intellectual Property)
        • a.  Introduction  16.32
        • b.  Form: Security Agreement (Intellectual Property)  16.33
    • G.  Convertible Promissory Notes
      • 1.  Generally  16.34
      • 2.  Form: Convertible Promissory Note  16.35


Advertising on the Internet

    • A.  Introduction  17.1
    • B.  Overview of Applicable Laws  17.2
      • 1.  Lanham Act  17.3
      • 2.  Federal Trade Commission Act  17.4
        • a.  FTC’s Dot Com Disclosure Guidelines  17.5
        • b.  Liability for Deceptive Advertising; FTC Enforcement Actions  17.6
        • c.  Examples of FTC Enforcement Actions  17.7
        • d.  Endorsements and Testimonials  17.7A
        • e.  Native Advertising  17.7B
      • 3.  Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act  17.7C
      • 4.  State Laws  17.8
        • a.  Laws Prohibiting False or Misleading Advertising Generally  17.9
        • b.  Laws Regulating Telephone, Internet, and Catalog Sales  17.10
        • c.  Laws Regulating Online Advertising to Minors  17.10A
        • d.  Laws Regulating Use of Bots  17.10B
    • C.  Attorney Internet Advertising
      • 1.  Overview  17.10C
      • 2.  California Rules of Professional Conduct  17.10D
      • 3.  ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct  17.10E
    • D.  Unsolicited Email (“Spam”)  17.11
      • 1.  Federal Legislation: CAN-SPAM Act
        • a.  Generally  17.12
        • b.  Email Subject to CAN-SPAM Act  17.13
        • c.  CAN-SPAM Act: Basic Requirements for Commercial Email Messages  17.14
          • (1)  Identification as Advertisement  17.15
          • (2)  Notice and Opt-Out Mechanism  17.16
          • (3)  Postal Address  17.17
          • (4)  Affirmative Consent  17.18
          • (5)  Forwarding Commercial Emails  17.18A
        • d.  Deceptive Email Practices  17.19
        • e.  Sexually Oriented Materials  17.20
        • f.  Attribution Rules  17.21
        • g.  Enforcement of CAN-SPAM  17.22
        • h.  National “Do Not Email” Registry  17.23
        • i.  Commercial Emails Sent to Wireless Devices  17.23A
        • j.  Criminal Liability Under CAN-SPAM  17.23B
      • 2.  State Anti-Spam Laws
        • a.  Generally  17.24
        • b.  California Anti-Spam Laws  17.25
        • c.  Scope of Preemption of California Law by CAN-SPAM Act  17.26
        • d.  Penal Code §502(c)  17.27
      • 3.  Anti-Spam Litigation  17.28
      • 4.  Practical Methods of Blocking Spam Email  17.29
    • E.  Unsolicited Texts and Phone Calls  17.29A
    • F.  Search Engine Optimization
      • 1.  Overview  17.29B
      • 2.  Optimization Tools and Techniques  17.29C
    • G.  Behavioral Advertising  17.29D
    • A.  Overview  17.30
    • B.  Banner Advertising  17.31
    • C.  Form: Banner Advertising Agreement  17.32
    • D.  Internet Service Directories or Referral Sites  17.33
    • E.  Form: Internet Advertising Agreement  17.34
    • F.  Portal Agreements  17.35
    • G.  Form: Interactive Marketing Agreement  17.36
    • H.  Social Media Influencer Marketing  17.37
    • I.  Form: Social Media Influencer Independent Contractor Agreement  17.38



    • A.  Overview  18.1
    • B.  Scope of Chapter  18.2
    • C.  Major Types of Threats  18.3
    • A.  Federal and California Risk Management Requirements  18.5
      • 1.  Obligations of Businesses to Maintain Security (CC §1798.81.5)
        • a.  Reasonable and Appropriate Procedures and Practices  18.6
        • b.  “Personal Information” and Other Definitions  18.7
        • c.  Excluded Entities  18.8
        • d.  Private Right of Action  18.9
      • 2.  Obligations of California Governmental Agencies to Maintain Security (CC §1798.21)  18.10
      • 3.  Internet of Things (CC §§1798.91.04–1798.91.06)  18.11
      • 4.  Ethical Obligations of Attorneys  18.12
      • 5.  California Consumer Privacy Act (CC §§1798.100–1798.199.100)  18.13
      • 6.  Sector-Specific Obligations  18.14
    • B.  General Cybersecurity Guidance for Companies
      • 1.  NIST Cybersecurity Framework  18.15
        • a.  Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)  18.16
      • 2.  NIST Internet of Things  18.17
      • 3.  NYSE Guidance for Directors and Officers  18.18
      • 4.  Cal-Secure  18.19
      • 5.  Additional Online Resources  18.20
      • 6.  Checklist for Cybersecurity Preparedness  18.21
    • A.  Federal and California Requirements  18.22
      • 1.  Obligation to Report Data Breaches (CC §1798.82)  18.23
    • B.  Practical Responses to a Cyberattack
      • 1.  General Considerations  18.24
      • 2.  Checklist for Response to Cyberattack  18.25
    • A.  Federal Legislation
      • 1.  Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
        • a.  Overview  18.27
        • b.  As Applied to Conduct Exceeding Terms of Use  18.28
          • (1)  Violations of Terms of Use  18.29
          • (2)  Sharing Passwords  18.30
          • (3)  Access After Cease and Desist Letter  18.31
        • c.  As Applied to Tracking Software  18.32
        • d.  As Applied to Improper Use of Email  18.33
        • e.  As Applied to Spam  18.34
        • f.  As Applied to Wireless Networks  18.35
      • 2.  Electronic Communications Privacy Act
        • a.  Overview of Title I and Title II  18.36
        • b.  Title I, Wiretap Act  18.37
          • (1)  As Applied to Cookies  18.38
          • (2)  As Applied to Tracking Software  18.39
          • (3)  As Applied to Unauthorized Wireless Access  18.40
        • c.  Title II, Stored Communications Act  18.41
          • (1)  Authorized Versus Unauthorized Access  18.42
          • (2)  Emails and “Electronic Storage”  18.43
      • 3.  USA Patriot Act  18.44
      • 4.  Digital Millennium Copyright Act  18.45
      • 5.  Other Federal Statutes  18.46
    • B.  State Legislation
      • 1.  Penal Code §502: Computer Crimes  18.47
      • 2.  Ransomware  18.48
      • 3.  Wireless Devices  18.49
    • C.  Trespass to Chattels
      • 1.  Elements of Claim  18.50
      • 2.  Case Law Developments
        • a.  Interference With Computer System or Website Operations  18.51
          • (1)  In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation  18.52
          • (2)  Brodsky v Apple, Inc.  18.53
          • (3)  Casillas v Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co.  18.54
          • (4)  eBay, Inc. v Bidder’s Edge, Inc.  18.55
          • (5)  WhatsApp Inc. v NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd.  18.56
          • (6)  Intel Corp. v Hamidi  18.57
        • b.  Computer Hacking  18.58


Jurisdiction; Conflicts of Law

    • A.  Introduction  19.1
    • B.  Personal Jurisdiction  19.2
      • 1.  State Long-Arm Statutes  19.3
      • 2.  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  19.4
      • 3.  Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction
        • a.  Due Process Clause  19.5
        • b.  Minimum Contacts Test  19.6
        • c.  Reasonableness  19.7
      • 4.  General and Specific Personal Jurisdiction
        • a.  General Personal Jurisdiction  19.8
        • b.  Specific Personal Jurisdiction  19.9
        • c.  Specific Jurisdiction in Cyberspace  19.10
    • C.  In Rem Jurisdiction; Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act  19.11
    • D.  Choice-of-Forum Clauses
      • 1.  Enforceability  19.12
      • 2.  Form: Choice-of-Forum Clause  19.13
    • A.  Conflicts of Law
      • 1.  Generally  19.14
      • 2.  Constitutional Analysis  19.15
      • 3.  Is There a Choice-of-Law Clause?  19.16
      • 4.  Governmental Interest Analysis  19.17
      • 5.  Conflicts of Law on Internet  19.18
    • B.  Choice-of-Law Clauses
      • 1.  Enforceability
        • a.  California Statutes  19.19
        • b.  Nedlloyd Lines, B.V. v Superior Court and Later Cases  19.20
      • 2.  Drafting Considerations  19.21
      • 3.  Form: Choice-of-Law Clause  19.22


Liability Related to Speech and the First Amendment

    • A.  Scope of Chapter  20.1
    • B.  Speech-Related Liability Covered in Other Chapters  20.2
    • C.  Internet Jurisdiction  20.3
    • A.  Introduction  20.4
    • B.  First Amendment
      • 1.  Protection of Speech in Cyberspace  20.5
      • 2.  Prior Restraint  20.6
      • 3.  Commercial Speech  20.7
      • 4.  “Fighting Words” Doctrine  20.8
      • 5.  Incitement; Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct  20.9
      • 6.  True Threats  20.9A
      • 7.  Obscenity  20.10
        • a.  Miller Test for Obscenity  20.11
        • b.  Reliance on Community Standards Problematic in Cyberspace  20.12
        • c.  Transportation via “Interactive Computer Service”  20.13
        • d.  Federal Criminal Laws Regulating Obscenity  20.14
        • e.  Child Pornography  20.15
        • f.  Children’s Internet Protection Act  20.16
      • 8.  Filtering Software and First Amendment  20.17
      • 9.  Free Speech Rights in Anonymous Communications  20.18
      • 10.  Spam  20.19
      • 11.  Public versus Private Forums, Social Media, and Deplatforming  20.19A
      • 12.  Unconstitutional State Action Based on Content or Viewpoint  20.19B
      • 13.  First Amendment Defense to Wiretapping Liability  20.19C
      • 14.  Student Speech  20.19D
      • 15.  National Security  20.19E
    • A.  Defamation
      • 1.  Overview  20.21
      • 2.  Libel and Slander Distinguished  20.22
      • 3.  Elements of Defamation  20.23
        • a.  Trade Libel Distinguished  20.24
        • b.  Pleading Requirement: Identifying Alleged Defamatory Statement  20.25
        • c.   “Publication” Requirement  20.26
        • d.  “Of And Concerning” Requirement; “Group Libel”  20.27
        • e.  “Falsity” Requirement  20.28
          • (1)  Fact Versus Opinion  20.29
          • (2)  Burden of Proof  20.30
      • 4.  Public Officials, Public Figures, Limited-Purpose Public Figures, Private Figures, and Matters of Public Concern  20.31
      • 5.  Substantial Truth Defense  20.32
      • 6.  Defamatory Meaning Requirement  20.33
      • 7.  “Mental State” Requirement  20.34
        • a.  Private Figures: Negligence  20.35
        • b.  Public Officials, Public Figures, Limited-Purpose Public Figures, Matters of Public Concern: Actual Malice  20.36
      • 8.  Damages  20.37
      • 9.  Privilege  20.38
    • B.  Invasion of Privacy Torts  20.39
      • 1.  False Light  20.40
      • 2.  Public Disclosure of Private Facts  20.41
      • 3.  Right of Publicity; Misappropriation of Name and Likeness
        • a.  Overview  20.42
        • b.  Right of Publicity Survives Death  20.43
        • c.  Misappropriation Elements  20.44
        • d.  Right of Publicity; Elements  20.45
        • e.  Defenses
          • (1)  Use in Certain News Accounts or Political Campaigns  20.46
          • (2)  Transformative Use  20.47
          • (3)  First Amendment and Public Interest  20.48
          • (4)  Federal Copyright Law Preemption  20.49
          • (5)  Use of Deceased Individual in Copyrighted Work  20.50
        • f.  Statutory Remedies  20.51
      • 4.  Intrusion Upon Seclusion  20.52
        • a.   Intrusion Element  20.53
        • b.   Offensiveness Element  20.54
        • c.  Case Law Examples   20.54A
    • C.  Fraud  20.55
      • 1.  Affirmative Misrepresentation  20.56
        • a.  Misrepresentation Element  20.57
        • b.   “Intent” Requirement  20.58
        • c.   “Reliance” Requirement  20.59
      • 2.  Fraudulent Concealment  20.60
      • 3.  Negligent Misrepresentation  20.61
    • D.  Conversion  20.62
    • E.  Products Liability  20.62A
    • F.  Tortious Interference  20.62B
      • 1.  Interference With Contractual Relations  20.62C
      • 2.  Interference With Prospective Economic Relations  20.62D
  • IV.  PRIVILEGES  20.63
    • A.  Official Governmental Duty Privilege  20.64
    • B.  Litigation Privilege  20.65
    • C.  Common Interest Privilege  20.66
    • D.  Fair and True Report Privilege  20.67
    • A.  Generally  20.68
    • B.  Delayed Discovery Rule  20.69
    • C.  Single Publication Rule  20.70
    • D.  Specific Statutes of Limitation
      • 1.  Defamation  20.71
      • 2.  Invasion of Privacy (False Light, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Misappropriation, Right of Publicity, and Intrusion Upon Seclusion)  20.72
      • 3.  Intentional Fraud (Affirmative Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Concealment)  20.73
      • 4.  Negligent Misrepresentation  20.74
    • A.  Overview  20.75
    • B.  Legislative Intent  20.76
    • C.  Procedural Considerations  20.77
    • D.  Two-Pronged Procedure  20.78
      • 1.  Prong One: Defendant’s Burden To Show Cause of Action Arises From Protected Activity
        • a.  Four Categories of Protected Activity  20.79
        • b.  Protected Activity Defined by Statute Only  20.80
        • c.  No Additional Requirements  20.81
        • d.  Causes of Action Subject to Anti-SLAPP Statute  20.82
        • e.  Merits Not Analyzed in Prong One  20.83
        • f.  Exception for Criminal Conduct  20.84
        • g.  “Arises From” Requirement  20.85
        • h.  Written or Oral Statements Made in Governmental Proceedings (CCP §425.16(e)(1))  20.86
        • i.  Written or Oral Statements Made in Connection With Governmental Proceedings (CCP §425.16(e)(2))  20.87
        • j.  Written or Oral Statements Made in Public Forums in Connection With Matters of Public Interest (CCP §425.16(e)(3))  20.88
        • k.  Any Conduct in Furtherance of Right to Petition or Free Speech in Connection With Matter of Public Concern or Public Interest (CCP §425.16(e)(4))  20.89
      • 2.  Prong Two: Plaintiff’s Burden to Show Probability of Prevailing  20.90
        • a.  Legal Standard in State Court  20.91
        • b.  Legal Standards in Federal Court  20.92
        • c.  Anti-SLAPP Motions in Libel Actions  20.93
        • d.  Anti-SLAPP Motions in Cases Involving Confidentiality Agreements  20.93A
    • E.  Exemptions to Anti-SLAPP Statute  20.94
      • 1.  Commercial Speech Exemption  20.95
      • 2.  Public Interest Exemption  20.96
    • F.  Exceptions to Exemptions  20.97
      • 1.  Media Defendants, Book Publishers, and Authors  20.98
      • 2.  Purveyors of Copyrighted Works  20.99
      • 3.  Nonprofit Organizations  20.100
    • G.  Attorney Fees
      • 1.  Prevailing Defendant’s Right to Attorney Fees  20.101
      • 2.  Plaintiff Entitled to Fees Only if Motion Was Frivolous  20.102
      • 3.  Amount of Fees  20.103
    • A.  Immunity for Internet Intermediaries  20.104
    • B.  Interactive Computer Service (ICS)  20.105
    • C.  Information Content Provider (ICP)  20.106
    • D.  Preemption; Relation to State Laws  20.107
    • E.  Nature of Immunity  20.108
    • F.  Exceptions to Immunity  20.109
      • 1.  Criminal Activity and Obscene Material  20.110
      • 2.  Intellectual Property  20.111
      • 3.  Sex Trafficking  20.112
      • 4.  Material Contribution to Unlawful Activity  20.112A
    • G.  No Publisher or Speaker Liability  20.113
      • 1.  Common Law Publisher–Distributor Distinction for Defamation Irrelevant  20.114
      • 2.  Traditional and Nontraditional Publisher Functions  20.115
      • 3.  Applies to “Providers” and “Users” of ICSs  20.116
      • 4.  Name of Claim Not Dispositive  20.117
      • 5.  Limits Injunctive Relief  20.118
      • 6.  Defendant “Directly Involved” in Soliciting Unlawful Speech Ineligible for Immunity [Deleted]  20.119
      • 7.  Nature and Structure of Website May Be Sufficient to Show Direct Involvement in Unlawful Speech [Deleted]  20.120
      • 8.  Merely Providing Tools to Create Web Content Insufficient to Strip Immunity  20.121
      • 9.  Use of Nonemployee Moderators  20.122
      • 10.  Advertising Content  20.123
      • 11.  “Fake News” Websites  20.124
      • 12.  Cases Upholding CDA Immunity  20.125
      • 13.  Cases Holding No CDA Immunity  20.126
    • H.  The “Good Samaritan” Exemption
      • 1.  Two-Part Exemption  20.127
      • 2.  Allegedly Improper Blocking  20.128
      • 3.  Alleged Interference With Third Party Downloadable Programs  20.129
      • 4.  Good Faith Finding Not Required When Classified as Editorial Function  20.130
    • A.  Overview  20.131
    • B.  Potential Causes of Action  20.132
      • 1.  Defamation  20.133
      • 2.  Trademark Infringement and Dilution  20.134
      • 3.  Cybersquatting: Federal and State Law
        • a.  UDRP  20.135
        • b.  Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act  20.136
        • c.  California’s Anticybersquatting Statute  20.137
    • C.  Practical Solutions  20.138
    • A.  Generally  20.139
    • B.  Child Pornography
      • 1.  Child Pornography Prevention Act  20.140
      • 2.  Child Online Protection Act  20.141
    • C.  California Penal Code  20.142


Discovery of Electronically Stored Information

Alexander H. Lubarsky, LL.M., Esq.

    • A.  Retention of ESI
      • 1.  Regulatory Obligations  20A.2
      • 2.  In Absence of Statute or Regulation  20A.3
    • B.  Document Retention Policies  20A.4
    • C.  Special Problems Concerning Email and Other Digital Messaging Technologies  20A.5
    • D.  The CLOUD Act: Electronic Information Stored on Foreign Servers  20A.5A
    • A.  Rule 16: Scheduling Orders; Case Management  20A.7
    • B.  Rule 26: General Discovery Provisions; Duty of Disclosure
      • 1.  Initial Voluntary Disclosure  20A.8
      • 2.  “Clawback” of Privileged Material  20A.9
      • 3.  Meet-and-Confer Requirements  20A.10
      • 4.  Safe Harbor if ESI Not Reasonably Accessible  20A.11
    • C.  Rule 33: Interrogatory Responses  20A.12
    • D.  Rule 34: Production of Documents and Things
      • 1.  Rule 34(a): Inspection, Copying, Testing, and Sampling  20A.13
      • 2.  Rule 34(b): Specifying Format for Production  20A.14
    • E.  Rule 37: Duty to Comply With Court Order; Safe Harbor for Routine Deletion  20A.15
    • F.  Rule 45: Response to Subpoenas  20A.16
    • G.  Federal NIT Warrants  20A.16A
    • A.  Rules of Court  20A.17
    • B.  Electronic Discovery Act  20A.18
      • 1.  ESI From Sources Not Reasonably Accessible  20A.18A
      • 2.  Safe Harbor for Lost Information  20A.18B
      • 3.  Disclosure of Privileged Information  20A.18C
      • 4.  Form of Production  20A.18D
      • 5.  Court-Imposed Limits on Production  20A.18E
    • A.  ESI Survey and Retention Policy  20A.19
    • B.  Identifying Key Personnel  20A.20
    • A.  Notice of Litigation  20A.21
    • B.  Duty to Preserve Evidence  20A.22
    • C.  Legal Hold Letter to Client
      • 1.  Legal Holds  20A.23
      • 2.  Form: Legal Hold Letter to Client  20A.24
    • D.  Litigation Hold Letter to Opponent
      • 1.  Litigation Holds  20A.25
      • 2.  Form: Litigation Hold Letter to Opponent  20A.26
    • E.  Manner of Preservation  20A.27
    • F.  Sanctions for Failure to Preserve  20A.28
    • A.  Identifying Data for Discovery
      • 1.  Need to Understand ESI Infrastructure  20A.29
      • 2.  Drafting a Request for Production  20A.30
    • B.  Collecting Data
      • 1.  Defensible Collection Strategies  20A.31
      • 2.  Paper-Based Versus Electronic Production  20A.32
      • 3.  Forensic Data Professionals  20A.33
      • 4.  Electronic Data Collection Software  20A.34
      • 5.  Risks in ESI Collection  20A.35
      • 6.  Metadata  20A.36
      • 7.  ESI Seized by Law Enforcement Through Search Warrants   20A.36A
      • 8.  Forensic or Mirror Images  20A.37
      • 9.  Right to On-Site Inspection  20A.38
    • C.  Form of Production  20A.39
      • 1.  Production in Native Format  20A.40
      • 2.  Production of Image Files  20A.41
        • a.  Copying Electronic Files  20A.42
        • b.  Handling Metadata  20A.43
    • D.  Privileged Information  20A.44
    • E.  Federal Rule of Evidence 502  20A.44A
    • F.  Data Processing, Storage, and Review
      • 1.  De-Duplication and Near De-Duplication  20A.45
      • 2.  Litigation Support Platforms  20A.46
      • 3.  Hosting  20A.47
      • 4.  Data Security  20A.48
    • G.  Costs of E-Discovery  20A.49


International Issues

    • A.  Introduction  21.1
    • B.  Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)  21.1A
    • C.  Hague Conference on Private International Law  21.2
    • D.  Applicable Law in International Disputes  21.3
    • E.  Jurisdiction of Foreign Courts  21.4
    • F.  Comity: Enforcing Foreign Judgments Against U.S. Companies  21.5
    • G.  Content Filtering by Foreign Governments  21.6
    • H.  How to Target or Avoid Certain Countries  21.7
    • I.  International Electronic Contracting  21.8
    • J.  International Intellectual Property Protection  21.9
    • K.  European Union Directives
      • 1.  Introduction  21.10
      • 2.  EU Data Protection Directive and Related Developments
        • a.  1995 EU Data Protection Directive  21.11
        • b.  General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)  21.11A
        • c.  Right to Be Forgotten  21.11B
        • d.  Prior Framework (EU-U.S. Privacy Shield); “Schrems II” Decision  21.11C
        • e.  EU­U.S. Data Privacy Framework  21.11D
        • f.  Compliance With EU General Data Protection Regulation
          • (1)  Self-Certifying Under the Privacy Shield Framework   21.12
          • (2)  Consequences of Noncompliance [Deleted]  21.12A
          • (3)  Case-by-Case Compliance; Standard Contract Clauses (SCCs)  21.13
          • (4)  Europrivacy Certification Mechanism   21.13A
      • 3.  Other EU Directives
        • a.  Distance Selling  21.14
        • b.  E-Commerce Directives
          • (1)  EU Directive on Electronic Commerce 2000  21.15
          • (2)  Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act  21.15A
        • c.  VAT Directive  21.16
        • d.  Specific Industry Directives  21.17
        • e.  EU Data Retention Directive  21.18
        • f.  EU Cybersecurity Directive  21.18A
        • g.  EU Database Directive  21.18B
    • L.  Self-Regulation
      • 1.  Trustmarks  21.19
      • 2.  International ADR  21.20
    • A.  U.S. Export Controls  21.21
      • 1.  Export Administrative Regulations (EAR)  21.22
      • 2.  Scope of EAR; Commerce Control List (CCL)  21.23
      • 3.  Definition of “Export”  21.24
    • B.  Compliance Challenges  21.25
    • C.  Export Control Compliance Programs  21.26
    • D.  Violations   21.27
    • E.  Export Controls of Other Nations  21.28
    • F.  Import Controls  21.29
    • G.  Form: Export Control Compliance Clause  21.30


Acquisitions and Sales of Internet-Based Businesses

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  22.1
    • A.  Introduction  22.3
    • B.  Due Diligence Procedures
      • 1.  Confidentiality Agreement  22.4
      • 2.  Due Diligence Checklist  22.5
      • 3.  Seller’s Internal Response Team  22.6
      • 4.  Responding to Request  22.7
      • 5.  Advance Preparation by Seller  22.8
      • 6.  Buyer’s Due Diligence Report  22.9
      • 7.  Analyzing Information  22.10
      • 8.  Disposition of Information  22.11
    • C.  Sample Due Diligence Checklist
      • 1.  Introduction  22.12
      • 2.  Checklist: Due Diligence Information Request  22.13
    • D.  “Open Source” Software
      • 1.  Introduction  22.13A
      • 2.  Checklist: Acquiring Open Source Software  22.13B
    • E.  Sample Due Diligence Report
      • 1.  Introduction  22.14
      • 2.  Form: Due Diligence Report re Intellectual Property Matters  22.15
    • A.  Introduction  22.16
    • B.  Form: Representations and Warranties re Intellectual Property  22.17
    • A.  Introduction  22.18
    • B.  Form: Internet Domain Name Assignment Agreement  22.19


(1st Edition)

July 2023



File Name

Book Section



Chapter 1

Copyright and the DMCA



Copyright Assignment



Checklist: Notice and Take-Down Checklist



Checklist: Company DMCA Compliance Policy


Chapter 2

Patents and Trade Secrets



Patent Assignment



Company Policy on Trade Secret Protection



Confidentiality Agreement


Chapter 3

Domain Names and Trademark Issues



Domain Name Purchase Agreement



UDRP Complaint



UDRP Response



Trademark Guidelines



Trademark License Agreement



Trademark Assignment



Sample Cease and Desist Letter


Chapter 4

Human Resources



Offer Letter to Prospective Employee



Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement



Independent Contractor Consulting Agreement



Nondisclosure Agreement



Advisory Board Letter Agreement


Chapter 5

Website and App Development; Disability Accommodation Issues



Agreement for Transfer and Assignment of Intellectual Property



Website Development Agreement


Chapter 6

Hosting and Related Services; Cloud Computing



Hosting Services Agreement



Co-Location Agreement



Short Form Service Level Agreement



Website Hosting Service Level Agreement



Technical Support and Maintenance Agreement



Basic Technical Support Exhibit



Sample Cloud Services Agreement



Security Addendum


Chapter 8

Terms of Use; Online Agreements; Linking; Downloading; Social Networking



Website Terms of Use



Online End-User Software License Agreement



Online Beta User Evaluation Agreement



Open Source Software License Agreement



Evaluation License Agreement



Online Software Developer Toolkit License Agreement



Linking Agreement


Chapter 9

Privacy Law and Privacy Policies



Privacy Policy


Chapter 10

E-Commerce Transactions; Tax and Insurance Issues



Sample Clauses re Payment of Subscription Fees


Chapter 11

Strategic Alliances



Form: Sample Letter of Intent Re Strategic Alliance



Strategic Alliance Agreement



Co-Branding Agreement


Chapter 12

Software License Agreements



Software License Agreement



Exclusivity Clause


Chapter 13

Software Development Agreements



Form: Software Development Agreement



Software Test and Evaluation Agreement


Chapter 14

Content Clearances, Licensing, and Fair Use



Endorsement Agreement



Still Photograph License



Digital Reprint Rights License



Streaming Video License


Chapter 15

Source Code Escrows



Form: Source Code Escrow Agreement


Chapter 16

Financing an Online Business



Term Sheet for Preferred Stock Financing



Loan Agreement



Promissory Note



Security Agreement (Intellectual Property)



Convertible Promissory Note


Chapter 17

Advertising on the Internet



Banner Advertising Agreement



Internet Advertising Agreement



Interactive Marketing Agreement



Social Media Influencer Independent Contractor Agreement


Chapter 18




Checklist for Response to Cyberattack


Chapter 19

Jurisdiction; Conflicts of Law



Choice-of-Forum Clause



Choice-of-Law Clause


Chapter 20A

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information



Legal Hold Letter to Client



Litigation Hold Letter to Opponent


Chapter 21

International Issues



Export Control Compliance Clause


Chapter 22

Acquisitions and Sales of Internet-Based Businesses



Checklist: Due Diligence Information Request



Checklist: Acquiring Open Source Software



Due Diligence Report re Intellectual Property Matters



Representations and Warranties re Intellectual Property



Internet Domain Name Assignment Agreement


Selected Developments

July 2023 Update


Under 17 USC §411(b)(1), to challenge the validity of a copyright registration, the challenging party must demonstrate (1) that inaccuracies in the application were made with knowledge of the inaccuracy (the knowledge requirement); and (2) had the Register of Copyrights known of the inaccuracy, the registration would have been denied (the materiality requirement). Previously, the Ninth Circuit limited the knowledge requirement to mistakes of fact and not mistakes of law. The Supreme Court reversed and held that the knowledge requirement includes both mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. Unicolors, Inc. v H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. (2022) 595 US ___, 142 S Ct 941. If the applicant has a subjective good faith belief that the contents of the application were accurate (even if they were ultimately incorrect), there will be no violation of the knowledge requirement. See §1.18A.

If a copyrighted work is “used simply to illustrate what that work already depicts,” then the use is not transformative. McGucken v Pub Ocean Ltd. (9th Cir 2022) 42 F4th 1149, 1158. Further, “adding informative captions does not necessarily transform copyright works.” 42 F4th at 1158. See also Sicre de Fontbrune v Wofsy (9th Cir 2022) 39 F4th 1214, 1225. See §1.45.

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (CASE Act) (17 USC §§1501–1511) created a new venue—an administrative tribunal called the Copyright Claims Board (CCB)—to provide an alternative to federal court for certain types of copyright disputes. The CCB is a three-member board within the Copyright Office, which is intended to provide an efficient and user-friendly way to resolve certain small copyright claims (up to $30,000). See Copyright holders wishing to assert a claim before the CCB may, but need not, be represented by an attorney or a qualified law student. 17 USC §1506(d). See §1.90.


The mere fact that a claim contains a mathematical formula does not automatically render the claim patent ineligible. California Inst. of Technol. v Broadcom Ltd. (Fed Cir 2022) 25 F4th 976. See §2.3.

In In re Volkswagen Grp. of Am. (Fed Cir 2022) 28 F4th 1203, the Federal Circuit found that a district court abused its discretion in denying defendant car manufacturers’ motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue because the district court failed to apply proper agency law in determining whether independent dealerships were agents of the car manufacturers. The Federal Circuit found that the plaintiff failed to carry its burden to show that the independent dealerships were agents of the car manufacturers; therefore, the independent dealerships did not constitute a regular and established place of business of the car manufacturers for proper venue. See §2.16A.

In some instances, a court may find at Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test that a claim is not directed toward an abstract idea, and therefore conclude that a claim is directed toward patent-eligible subject matter without moving on to Step 2. See, e.g., ADASA Inc. v Avery Dennison Corp. (Fed Cir 2022) 55 F4th 900 (finding hardware-based RFID serial number data structure to be technological improvement to commissioning process). See §2.18C.

In Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v Kollective Technol., Inc. (Fed Cir 2022) 50 F4th 127, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Fed R Civ P 12(b)(6) that was based on patent-ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit found that the specification and the complaint sufficiently described how the invention improved the performance of a content delivery network and reduced costs. See §2.18D.

Weisner v Google, LLC (Fed Cir 2022) 51 F4th 1073 reflects a useful comparison of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter within related patents. Four patents were at issue, sharing virtually the same specification of ways to digitally record a person’s activities and ways of using the digital record. The Federal Circuit found two of the four patents were merely directed toward the abstract idea of a digital travel log, a common human activity in the form of travel logs, diaries, journals, and calendars. Because the digital travel logs were recorded using generic computer features (e.g., a processor, network, URL, and handheld mobile communications device), the Federal Circuit did not find that the claims recited anything more than the abstract idea of a travel log and therefore were directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter. In contrast, the Federal Circuit found the other two patents were directed toward patent-eligible subject matter because the claims were directed toward the use of the travel histories to improve computerized search results by using a new technique for prioritizing the results of the search. See §2.19.

Artificial Intelligence

A new chapter on the legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence has been added. See chap 3A.

Independent Contractors

In October 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed regulations to modify its analysis for determining employee or independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 USC §§201–219). See 87 Fed Reg 62218 (Oct. 13, 2022). The FLSA has been broadly construed to regulate wage and hour issues arising out of the employer-employee relationship. It applies only if an employment relationship exists. It does not apply to independent contractors. 29 USC §203(r)(1). The proposed rules are intended to provide a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis in which each economic reality factor is given full consideration. No single factor is dispositive, and the six listed factors are not exhaustive. The six factors are as follows (Proposed 29 CFR §795.105(b)):

  • 1.

    Whether the worker exercises managerial skill that affects the worker’s economic success or failure in performing the work;

  • 2.

    Whether any investments by a worker are capital or entrepreneurial in nature;

  • 3.

    Whether the work relationship is indefinite in duration or continuous;

  • 4.

    The scope of the employer’s control, including reserved control, over the performance of the work and the economic aspects of the working relationship;

  • 5.

    The extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business; and

  • 6.

    Whether the worker uses specialized skills to perform the work and whether those skills contribute to business-like initiative.

If finalized, the proposed rules would make it more difficult for certain workers to qualify as independent contractors. However, the scope of the rules’ preemption of California state law tests for independent contractor status would be an issue for the courts. See §4.14B.

Disability Accommodation

In Martinez v Cot’n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 CA5th 1026, the court conducted an extensive review of federal and state case law and the legislative history of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 USC §§12101–12213), concluding that the stand-alone website at issue was not a place of public accommodation. The court found that the term “place” is consistently defined as involving a physical location. The court also said that “the state of technology when the ADA was passed in 1990 [does not] suggest that Congress was unaware that the term carried a connotation of physical space and thus could exclude certain ‘sales and retail establishments’ from the scope of [the ADA] based on a lack of connection to a physical space. ‘[T]here were countless … businesses operating outside of brick-and-mortar premises in 1990, including some that had been in operation for decades,’ such as mail order catalogs.” 81 CA5th at 1044 (citations omitted). See §5.28.

On March 18, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice issued its Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA (Guidance), available at In the Guidance, the DOJ provides the following examples of barriers to website accessibility:

  • Poor color contrast;

  • Use of color alone to give information;

  • Lack of text alternatives (“alt text”) on images;

  • No captions on videos;

  • Inaccessible online forms; and

  • Mouse-only navigation (lack of keyboard navigation).

The Guidance points to the technical standards in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), available at, as providing helpful guidance on how to ensure accessibility of website features. See §5.29.

Electronic Contracting

In Doe v Massage Envy Franchising, LLC (2022) 87 CA5th 23, in which the court, citing Sellers with approval, denied enforcement of a click-wrap arbitration agreement. The court found that the contract terms, including the arbitration provision, were not presented to the plaintiff in a way that made it apparent that she was assenting to those terms. She was not on notice that clicking the website checkbox implicated any terms and conditions beyond those she had just reviewed. The court distinguished the cases that enforced click-wrap agreements in different factual circumstances, finding that the plaintiff in this case did not have reasonable notice that she was entering into any agreement with defendant, much less notice of the terms of the agreement. As in the case of browse-wrap agreements (discussed in §7.4), website design is crucial in determining whether someone has notice of the terms of an online click-wrap agreement. See §7.3.

In B.D. v Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (2022) 76 CA5th 931, the court found that the video game’s pop-up notice provided sufficiently conspicuous notice that by clicking on the “Continue” button at the bottom of the pop-up, the user would be agreeing to all of the terms. See §7.3.

Even if the structure of the approval process for a web business’s online terms of use is set up properly and is arguably defensible for adults, it may not survive if challenged by a minor. In Doe v Roblox Corp. (ND Cal, No. 3:21-cv-03943-WHO, May 9, 2022) 2022 US Dist Lexis 83523, the terms of service for the online gaming platform Roblox were held to be invalid as to the plaintiffs in a class action, because the process was not sufficiently clear to users who were minors. 2022 US Dist Lexis 83523, at *14. The Roblox site featured the ability to make in-game purchases at its online store, such as clothing for user’s avatars. 2022 US Dist Lexis 83523, at *3. The suit alleged that Roblox did not adequately screen the content in its store. See §7.4C.

California Rules of Court 2.257 sets out detailed requirements for the validity of electronic signatures on documents signed under penalty of perjury and documents not signed under penalty of perjury. See See §7.11.

Social Networking

In NetChoice, LLC v AG, Fla. (11th Cir 2022) 34 F4th 1196, the Eleventh Circuit held that the social media companies were private actors with rights protected by the First Amendment and that the companies’ content-moderation decisions were protected exercises of editorial judgment. A petition for certiorari of the Eleventh Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court has been filed, but had not yet been granted as of February 2023. See §8.30A.

Business and Professions Code §§22675–22681 (called “Content Moderation Requirements for Internet Terms of Service”) apply to “social media companies,” defined as persons or entities that own or operate one or more “social media platforms” with gross annual revenues of $100 million or more. Bus & P C §§22675(d), 22680. “Social media platforms” are defined as public or semipublic internet-based services or applications with users in California, that both substantially function to connect users socially (not including connecting solely through email or direct messages) and allow users to (1) build public or semipublic profiles; (2) populate a list of users over a shared social connection; and (3) create or post content viewable by other users. Bus & P C §22675(e). A social media company that meets the revenue threshold must post its terms of service in a way that is reasonably designed to inform all users of the existence and contents of the terms of service. Covered social media companies must provide the California Attorney General with a copy of their current terms of service and a semiannual report on content moderation. See §8.30B.

In 2022, the FTC assessed Epic Games, Inc., creator of the popular video game Fortnite, $520 million over allegations that it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (15 USC §§6501–6506). (COPPA is discussed further in §§9.29–9.36.) The FTC required Epic to adopt strong privacy default settings for children and teens to ensure that voice and text communications are turned off by default. In addition, in response to allegations that Epic used design features, known as “dark patterns,” to trick players into making unintentional purchases, Epic was required to refund $245 million to consumers. Fortnite’s “dark patterns” included confusing button configurations that led players to incur unwanted charges, e.g., by attempting to wake the game from sleep mode, while the game was in a loading screen, or by attempting to preview an item. See See §8.32A.


In 2022, the federal right to privacy was limited when the Supreme Court overruled its previous holding in Roe. See Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. (2022) ___ US ___, 142 S Ct 2228. See §9.7.

In In the Matter of Drizly, LLC, and James Cory Rellas, individually, and as an officer of Drizly, LLC (Oct. 24, 2022) FTC File No. 202 3185, the FTC announced an action against Drizly and its CEO, James Cory Rellas, over allegations that the company failed to adequately secure user data, leading to a data breach that exposed the personal information of about 2.5 million consumers. The FTC’s complaint alleged that Drizly failed to use reasonable information security practices despite being aware of previous security incidents and in contradiction to its express representations regarding security. Under the FTC order, Drizly and Rellas were required to destroy unnecessary data, limit future data collection, and implement an information security program with specified controls. The FTC order was also notable as it was a rare occasion when an executive was directly penalized. See §9.9A.

In In re Chegg, Inc. (Jan. 26, 2023) FTC File No. 2023151, the FTC also took action against education technology provider Chegg, Inc. over its security practices, which exposed sensitive user information including Social Security numbers, emails, and passwords. The FTC alleged that Chegg’s lax security practices, including a failure to implement reasonable security measures, insecure storage methods, and failure to develop adequate security policies and training, resulted in four data breaches that exposed user personal information. The consent order required that Chegg detail and limit data collection, provide consumer access to data, implement multifactor authentication, and implement a security program to address flaws with its security practices, including data encryption. See §9.9A.

In 2022, the FTC announced a $150 million penalty against Twitter as a result of Twitter’s violation of its 2011 settlement. The new complaint alleged that Twitter misrepresented to users the reasons for which their personal information was collected. Although Twitter represented that telephone numbers and emails were collected for security purposes, users’ personal information was also used for targeted advertising. See See §9.9A.

On August 17, 2022, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (see 12 USC §§5491–5603) issued an interpretative rule titled Limited Applicability of Consumer Financial Protection Act’s “Time or Space” Exception with Respect to Digital Marketing Providers (Digital Marketing Interpretative Rule), at 87 Fed Reg 50556 (Aug. 17, 2022). The Digital Marketing Interpretative Rule interprets the definition of “service provider” under §1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) (Pub L 111–203, 124 Stat 1376). In it, the CFPB determined that “digital marketing providers that are involved in the identification or selection of prospective customers or the selection or placement of content to affect consumer engagement, including purchase or adoption behavior, are typically service providers under the CFPA.” This interpretation subjects digital marketing providers to the CFPA, including the including its prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs), if they offer or provide a financial product or service for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Service providers under the CFPA are also subject to CFPB audit and oversight. See §9.15D.

In August 2022, the California Office of the Attorney General (OAG) announced a settlement with cosmetics company, Sephora, Inc., for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (CC §§1798.100–1798.199.100). This settlement marks the first enforcement action of the CCPA by the California OAG since the CCPA was first passed in 2020. According to the OAG’s announcement, Sephora will pay a fine of $1.2 million and must comply with several injunctive terms. The OAG alleged in its complaint that Sephora failed to disclose to consumers that it was selling their personal information and subsequently failed to process consumer requests to opt out of the sale via user-enabled global privacy controls. See §9.18A.

The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) (CC §§1798.100–1798.199.100) requires the California Privacy Protection Agency to issue regulations to clarify or expand on several sections of the CPRA. Throughout 2022, the agency held a number of informational hearings to obtain further preliminary public input and has continued to make revisions to the draft regulations. Final CPRA regulations will likely not take effect until April 2023 at the earliest. For the status of the regulations, see See §9.18B.

In September 2022, California enacted two bills, AB 2091 (Stats 2022, ch 628) and AB 1242 (Stats 2022, ch 627) that expanded individual data privacy rights in connection with the reproductive rights enshrined in the California Reproductive Privacy Act of 2002 (Health & S C §§123460–123468). The laws came in response to the Supreme Court decision in June 2022, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. (2022) ___ US ___, 142 S Ct 2228, and amend various California code sections. The first law, AB 2091, prohibits the disclosure of medical information related to an individual seeking or obtaining an abortion in response to out-of-state subpoenas or requests or to out-of-state law enforcement for the purpose of enforcing another state’s laws that ban or limit an individual’s access to abortion services. Health & S C §12346. The second law, AB 1242, focuses on limiting cooperation and assistance of California corporations and law enforcement in investigations by out-of-state entities related to lawful abortions. Specifically, the law prohibits the sharing of information and cooperation with any out-of-state agency to the extent permitted by federal law. Pen C §13778.2. See §9.27C.

As of this writing, four other states have adopted comprehensive consumer data privacy laws: Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia. These laws borrow various elements from the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (see §9.37A) and existing California data privacy law (see §§9.18A–9.18B). Notably, these consumer data privacy laws generally adopt GDPR definitions, using terms such as “controller” and “processor” as distinct from California’s terms “business” and “service provider.” See §9.27D.

In September 2022, California enacted the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC) (CC §§1798.99.28–1798.99.40), which takes effect July 1, 2024. The AADC is a landmark privacy bill modeled after the United Kingdom’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (see §9.37B) that imposes certain requirements relating to children’s data privacy. In general, the AADC applies to businesses that provide online products and services that are “likely to be accessed” by a child. CC §1798.99.30(b)(4). Businesses must (1) complete Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) before offering any new online product or service to the public when that product or service is likely to be accessed by a child; (2) document any risks of “material detriment to children” that may be identified in the DPIA; and (3) create a plan to eliminate or mitigate such risks to children before the online product or service is actually accessed by a child. CC §1798.99.31(a)(1)(A)–(B), (a)(2). See §9.36D.

On October 7, 2022, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities, available at, directing the steps that the United States will take to implement the U.S. commitments under the European Union-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (Privacy Framework) announced by President Biden and European Commission President von der Leyen in March 2022. The Privacy Framework will foster trans-Atlantic data flows and address the concerns raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Schrems II decision of July 2020. See §§9.38, 21.11D.


Building on President Biden’s Executive Order, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order on May 4, 2022 (1) to create a regulatory approach that would encourage responsible innovation in blockchain and cryptocurrenty technologies, while protecting California consumers; (2) to assess how to deploy blockchain technology for state and public institutions; and (3) to build research and workforce development pathways to prepare Californians for success in these markets. See The Order outlines seven priorities for relevant state agencies. See §10.5A.

In Wildes v BitConnect Int’l PLC (11th Cir 2022) 25 F4th 1341, the court addressed the applicability of the federal securities laws to videos posted on YouTube and other social media websites promoting cryptocurrency. Investors who sustained losses filed a class action alleging the defendants violated §§5 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 USC §§77e(a)(1), 77l(a)(1)) by soliciting the purchase of unregistered securities. The Eleventh Circuit held that offers of securities under the securities laws include promotions using mass communication media such as YouTube, and are not limited to individualized offers to specific persons. See §10.5A.

On March 22, 2023, the SEC announced charges against crypto asset entrepreneur Justin Sun and three of his wholly-owned companies, Tron Foundation Limited, BitTorrent Foundation Ltd., and Rainberry Inc. (formerly BitTorrent), for the unregistered offer and sale of crypto asset securities Tronix (TRX) and BitTorrent (BTT). The SEC also charged Sun and his companies with fraudulently manipulating the secondary market for TRX through extensive wash trading, which involves the simultaneous or near-simultaneous purchase and sale of a security to make it appear actively traded without an actual change in beneficial ownership, and for orchestrating a scheme to pay celebrities to tout TRX and BTT without disclosing their compensation. The SEC simultaneously charged eight celebrities for illegally touting TRX or BTT without disclosing that they were compensated for doing so and the amount of their compensation. See See §10.5D.

Hermès Int’l v Rothschild (SD NY, May 18, 2023, No. 22-cv-384 (JSR)) 2022 US Dist Lexis 89799, one of the first trademark infringement actions involving NFTs, is an ongoing dispute between the international luxury fashion house Hermès and an artist using the name Mason Rothschild, involving the artist’s line of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) depicting fur-covered Birkin handbags, called “MetaBirkins.” In this round of the lawsuit, the court denied the artist’s motion to dismiss the trademark infringement claims, stating that the amended complaint includes sufficient allegations of explicit misleadingness either as a function of likelihood of confusion or under Rothschild’s own theory of explicitly misleading analysis. 2022 US Dist Lexis 89799, *17. See §10.5C.

In April 2022, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it will begin to exercise its supervisory authority over nonbank consumer financial entities that the CFPB believes may pose risks to consumers, in order to protect consumers and level the playing field between banks and nonbanks. See See §10.6.

The Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces for Consumers Act (INFORM Consumers Act), §301 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub L 117–328, 136 Stat 4459), enacted December 29, 2022, is intended to increase the transparency of third party sellers in online retail marketplaces. Effective in June 2023, the Act requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information from high-volume, third party sellers. High-volume, third party sellers include online marketplace participants that conduct 200 or more transactions resulting in total revenues of $5,000 or more during a continuous 12-month period. Online marketplaces must obtain these sellers’ (1) bank account numbers; (2) government-issued identification; (3) tax identification numbers; and (4) contact information. Online marketplaces must verify this information and annually certify any changes to it. Further, online marketplaces must make certain information (e.g., sellers’ names and contact information) available to consumers through the sellers’ product listings and provide consumers with methods to report electronically and by telephone any suspicious activity on the marketplace. The Act provides the Federal Trade Commission with the authority to enforce these requirements. See §10.16E.


On March 15, 2022, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub L 117–103, 136 Stat 49), President Biden signed into law new cyberattack reporting obligations for companies with businesses involving critical infrastructure. The new law, titled the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (Division Y of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, §§101–107), will eventually require certain companies with critical infrastructure to report cyber incidents within 72 hours and ransomware payments within 24 hours. The new requirements do not go into effect immediately. The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has 24 months to issue proposed rules to implement the law, although the agency may do so in advance of that deadline. See §18.22.

In hiQ Labs, Inc. v LinkedIn Corp. (9th Cir, Apr. 18, 2022, No. 17-16783) 2022 US App Lexis 10349, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its prior ruling that wholesale scraping of data from public LinkedIn profiles does not breach the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 USC §1030). Ruling in favor of hiQ Labs, the court confirmed that its decision was reinforced by Van Buren v U.S. (2021) 593 US ___, 141 S Ct 1648, which bolstered hiQ Lab’s case that it did not breach the CFAA by continuing to scrape LinkedIn profile data in order to build a data analytics product despite having received a cease-and-desist letter. See §18.31.

In Casillas v Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. (2022) 79 CA5th 755, plaintiffs alleged that defendants, three insurance companies and two investigators, copied their electronic litigation files from a third party computer system, in violation of their interests in privacy and confidentiality. The court of appeal affirmed the action of the trial court dismissing the claim of trespass to chattels. The court held that plaintiffs’ allegations did not state a claim for trespass to chattels because plaintiffs conceded that the copying did not cause any damage or disruption to their computer system and they failed to allege any actionable injury to the copied files or their asserted property interests therein. They conceded the files had not been corrupted, and their own access to the files had not been impaired. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on their interests in privacy and confidentiality. See §18.54.


The test for personal jurisdiction under Fed R Civ P 4(k)(2) was outlined as follows in Will Co. v Ka Yeung Lee (9th Cir 2022) 47 F4th 917, 921: “[A] federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant if: (1) the claim arises under federal law, (2) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction, and (3) exercising jurisdiction comports with due process.” In that case, the Ninth Circuit found that the test was met. See §19.4.

In Will Co. v Ka Yeung Lee (9th Cir 2022) 47 F4th 917, a copyright suit, the Ninth Circuit found that the following factors were sufficient for personal jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based video-hosting website: (1) the defendants chose to host the website in Utah and to purchase content delivery network services for North America, which reduced the time it took for the site to load in the United States; (2) the webpages that addressed legal compliance were in English and were relevant almost exclusively to viewers in the United States; and (3) the advertising structure employed by the defendants demonstrated that they profited from United States viewers. See §§19.6, 19.10.

First Amendment and Other Speech-Related Liability

In Serova v Sony Music Entertainment (2022) 13 C5th 859, the California Supreme Court addressed whether promotional materials for expressive works constitute commercial speech or are entitled to higher protection. At issue in that case were promotional materials for a posthumous Michael Jackson album. The album was promoted as containing unreleased tracks by Michael Jackson. The plaintiff in a class action alleged that three of the tracks did not contain Michael Jackson’s voice but a person impersonating Michael Jackson. Applying the test from Kasky, the California Supreme Court found (1) the speaker and audience weighed in favor of finding commercial speech because the statements were made to promote the album to potential consumers; (2) the content of the speech involved characteristics of the product (i.e., the album); and (3) the album was a commercial product (and there is a long history of regulating promotional statements about expressive works). 13 C5th at 874–880. See §20.7.

Twitter, Inc. v Garland (9th Cir, Mar. 6, 2023, No. 20-16174) 2023 US App Lexis 5272, was an action by Twitter alleging First Amendment violations arising from FBI restrictions on Twitter’s publication of a report in which Twitter wished to publicly disclose certain information about governmental requests that Twitter received in 2013. The FBI determined that the number of its requests, including subpoenas, orders, and related information, was classified, and that Twitter’s disclosure of this information would harm national security. As a result, the FBI allowed Twitter to release its report only in a partially redacted form. The Ninth Circuit held that strict scrutiny applied because the restriction on Twitter’s speech was content-based. The panel acknowledged that Twitter had a First Amendment interest in commenting on matters of public concern involving national security subpoenas. Nevertheless, based on a careful review of classified and unclassified information, the panel held that the government’s redactions of Twitter’s report were narrowly tailored in support of the compelling government interest in national security and thus did not violate the First Amendment. See §20.19E.

For anti-SLAPP motions claiming protected speech under the “catch all” exception, the California Supreme Court has held that there is a “connection” element., Inc. v DoubleVerify, Inc. (2019) 7 C5th 133, 150. The “connection” element has two aspects: (1) first, courts must ask “what public issue or issue of public interest is implicated by the challenged activity”; and (2) second, courts must examine “the functional relationship between the challenged activity and the public issue it implicates, and ask whether the activity contributed to public discussion on that issue.” Geiser v Kuhns (2022) 13 C5th 1238, 1249–1250. The threshold under the first step is low as “caselaw demonstrates that virtually always, defendants succeed in drawing a line – however tenuous – connecting their speech to an abstract issue of public interest.” 13 C5th at 1250. Rather, it is the second step that “plays the more prominent role” in the analysis. 13 C5th at 1250. See §20.89.


In Red Wolf Energy Trading, LLC v BIA Capital Mgmt., LLC (D Mass, Sept. 8, 2022, No. 19-10119-MLW) 2022 US Dist Lexis 162470, a trade secret misappropriation case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that new instant messaging technologies such as the increasingly popular tool, Slack, owned by, cannot be exempt from document production requirements simply because they are new. The court held that counsel must stay abreast of new messaging technologies, and that, if they cannot do so, they must associate someone with expertise on the platform at issue into the case to assist. The “dog ate my homework” excuse is no longer valid in e-discovery disputes. See §20A.5.

In Fast v LLC (D Ariz 2022) 340 FRD 326, the defendant was awarded sanctions on account of the plaintiff’s deletion of her Facebook messages concerning her emotional and medical condition, her job, and her termination from employment, all of which likely would have been relevant to her sex and disability discrimination and retaliation claims. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay opposing counsel’s fees and costs, and the defendant was allowed to conduct further forensic review of the plaintiff’s electronic devices to determine whether additional deleted information would be recoverable. See §20A.25.

In Hollis v Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. (ND Ill, May 19, 2022, No. 19 CV 50135) 2022 US Dist Lexis 90234, an Illinois federal district court found that a defendant’s action in allowing video camera footage to overwrite itself (after the opposing party mentioned that the footage could be relevant in pretrial statements) constituted sanctionable spoliation. The court found that by allowing the video camera to record over itself (which the camera does by default) constituted a failure to take reasonable steps to preserve relevant electronic evidence. The court also found that, unlike email and other digital evidence, the video evidence was lost forever once it was recorded over. The judge issued an adverse inference instruction to the jury, finding that defendant’s action was intentional. See §20A.28.


On December 31, 2021, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) imposed financial penalties of €90 million against Google LLC, €60 million against Google Ireland Limited, and €60 million against Facebook Ireland Limited, as well as injunctions ordering the companies to provide internet users located in France with a means of refusing cookies as simple as the existing means of accepting them, in order to guarantee their freedom of consent. This decision represents a landmark in GDPR enforcement, levying the highest fines issued to date under the GDPR in the European Union. See See §21.11A.

On December 13, 2022, the European Commission launched the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the Privacy Framework. The draft adequacy decision concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EU to the U.S. An adequacy decision is one of the tools provided under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to transfer personal data from the EU to third countries that, in the assessment of the Commission, offer a comparable level of protection of personal data to that of the European Union. Once the adequacy decision is adopted, European entities will be able to transfer personal data to participating companies in the United States without having to put in place additional data protection safeguards. U.S. companies will be able to certify their participation in the Privacy Framework by committing to comply with a detailed set of privacy obligations (such as purpose limitations and data retention, as well as specific obligations concerning data security and the sharing of data with third parties). For additional information, see See §21.11D.

In October 2022, the European Data Processing Board, an independent body bringing together the EU’s national data protection authorities from across the EU, approved the first European Data Protection Seal. See This certification mechanism encompasses a wide range of data processing operations in many sectors. Data controllers, the companies and services who decide why and how personal data is processed, as well as data processors, third parties, and employees who process personal data on behalf of a controller, perform these operations. The Europrivacy certification can help data controllers and data processors certify their data processes are valid in all member states. See See §21.13A.

In 2022, the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065) (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925) (DMA) became law in the EU to update the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 discussed in §21.15. See and Internet intermediaries subject to the DSA have until January 1, 2024 to comply with its requirements. The DSA is intended to improve content moderation on social media platforms in order to address concerns about illegal content. It includes chapters regulating the obligations and liability exemptions of intermediaries and the enforcement framework. The DSA has a conditional liability exemption under which companies that host third party content are not liable for the content unless they actually know it is illegal and, once obtaining such knowledge, do not act to remove it. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of criteria for qualifying large online platforms as so-called “gatekeepers.” It is intended to provide businesses who depend on gatekeepers with a fairer business environment, without unfair terms and conditions that limit their development. It is also intended to provide consumers with better services to choose from, more opportunities to switch their provider if they wish, direct access to services, and fairer prices. Gatekeepers are not allowed to use unfair practices toward the business users and customers that depend on them to gain an undue advantage. See §21.15.

In September 2022, the European Commission proposed a new EU Cyber Resilience Act to protect consumers and businesses from products with inadequate security features. The measure introduces mandatory cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements, throughout their whole lifecycle. It is intended to ensure that digital products, such as wireless and wired products and software, are more secure for consumers across the EU as well as to require manufacturers to provide security support and software updates to address identified vulnerabilities. See See §21.18A.

About the Authors

CLARA RUYAN MARTIN received her B.A. degree from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1985 and her J.D. degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1989. She was a founding partner of the Los Angeles law firm Cadence Law Group LLP. She specializes in structuring, drafting, negotiation, and implementation of complex corporate and technology transactions. Her corporate work includes mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, corporate finance, and venture representation. Her technology practice is broad, ranging from software licensing and development to strategic alliances and e-commerce. Ms. Martin is an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California School of Law. She has served on the Cyberlaw Committee of the State Bar of California and is a frequent lecturer on topics such as software licensing agreements, internet-related agreements, complex joint ventures, venture finance, and mergers and acquisitions.

DAVID B. OSHINSKY received his B.A. degree from Yale University in 1991 and his J.D. degree from Columbia Law School in 1996, where he was a member of the Columbia Law Review. He is a founding partner of the Los Angeles law firm Cadence Law Group LLP. Mr. Oshinsky works with many start-up and early-stage companies, for which he provides counsel regarding their early operational, financing, and intellectual property requirements. He regularly assists clients with venture capital financing; technology transactions; and mergers, acquisitions, and related corporate transactions. In particular, his practice involves the structuring, drafting, and negotiating of technology licenses, website policies and agreements, software development agreements, and strategic alliances. Mr. Oshinsky has written and lectured on a broad range of technology topics, including website development agreements, strategic alliances, intellectual property issues in mergers and acquisitions, and internet law in California.

About the 2023 Update Authors

ROM BAR-NISSIM is an associate at the Law Offices of Lincoln Bandlow, P.C. where his practice focuses on the digital, media, and entertainment industries with an emphasis on copyright and First Amendment litigation. Previously, Mr. Bar-Nissim was an associate at a national law firm with a similar practice. Mr. Bar-Nissim has litigated copyright cases throughout the country, including before the Ninth Circuit. He has litigated First Amendment and speech-related cases before the Supreme Court of California and the California Court of Appeal, and at the trial court level. He has co-authored several articles, public comments, and amicus briefs concerning copyright and digital issues. In 2014, he co-authored, with Professor Jack Lerner, a chapter on law enforcement practices for the American Bar Association publication Whistleblowers, Leaks and the Media: National Security and the First Amendment. Mr. Bar-Nissim received his B.F.A. in Theater from Florida Atlantic University in 2002 and his J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law in 2013, where he won the Norma Zarky Award for Excellence in Entertainment Law. Mr. Bar-Nissim is Co-Executive Editor of this update, a 2023 update co-author of chapters 1 and 14, and the 2023 update author of chapter 20.

RICK BORDEN is a partner in the Privacy & Data Security Group at the New York office of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz P.C. He drafts privacy policies and cybersecurity compliance documents, and assesses data sharing, protection and the collection and use of employee and consumer personal data. Formerly, Rick was a cybersecurity lawyer at Bank of America and the Chief Privacy Officer and Cybersecurity Counsel at The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. He currently helps clients comply with the New York State Department of Financial Services Cybersecurity Regulation, SEC cybersecurity rules and enforcement, the wave of new state privacy laws coming out of California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut, and emerging issues with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules for digital marketing agencies. Mr. Borden is a 2023 update co-author of chapter 9.

SOYEUN D. CHOI earned her B.A. in Psychology from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Ms. Choi’s office is based in Palo Alto, where she practices business and intellectual property law. She served the community as the 2020–21 Chair of the California Lawyers Association Business Law Section, and continues to serve as General Counsel for the Asian Business League and a fee arbitrator for the Palo Alto Area Bar Association. She also fosters dogs for Pets in Need. Ms. Choi is the 2023 update author of chapter 6.

KIMBERLY CULP is a counsel at Fenwick & West LLP in Mountain View, where she works with digital media, videogame, and consumer products companies to help them resolve their intellectual property and advertising issues. Ms. Culp has authored numerous articles on advertising issues, including New Media Affords New Ways to Deliver Advertising and Branded Content—and New Challenges, 31 CEB Cal Bus L Prac 92 (Summer 2016). She also regularly presents at industry conferences on these legal issues. Ms. Culp was a “Super Lawyers Rising Star” from 2012–2019 and has been a “Super Lawyer” since 2020. She is an adjunct Professor of Law at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, where she teaches a course on Emerging Digital Entertainment. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Davis, and her law degree from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Ms. Culp is the 2023 update author of chapter 17.

DANIEL M. GOLDBERG is Chair of the Privacy & Data Security Group at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. Widely considered one of the top privacy lawyers in the U.S., he has been consistently recognized by top legal rating organizations including Chambers USA and Global, Law360, The Legal 500, and Super Lawyers. Mr. Goldberg counsels clients on all matters involving data—from collection and monetization to security and incident response. He has special expertise in ad tech and technology transactions, often negotiating sophisticated agreements on behalf of top agencies, brands, and technology providers. Mr. Goldberg regularly advises clients on GDPR and CCPA compliance, and is actively preparing clients for new U.S. privacy laws taking effect in 2023, including the CPRA, VCDPA, and CPA. He is based in Los Angeles and admitted to practice law in California. Mr. Goldberg is a 2023 update co-author of chapter 9.

JACK LERNER is Clinical Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, and Director of the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic. Professor Lerner received his B.A. in English, with distinction, from the University of Kansas and his J.D. from Harvard Law School. He clerked for Judge Fred I. Parker on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge G. Thomas Van Bebber in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. He practiced intellectual property law with the Palo Alto law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., and has taught at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. In 2016, Professor Lerner was awarded the California Lawyer Attorney of the Year award for his work obtaining exemptions to the copyright laws that affect documentary filmmakers and authors nationwide. Professor Lerner is Co-Executive Editor of this update and a 2023 update co-author of chapters 1 and 14.

ALEXANDER H. LUBARSKY received his B.A. from Lewis and Clark College and his J.D. and LL.M. from Golden Gate University School of Law. Mr. Lubarsky is a practicing litigator, electronic discovery consultant, and author. He has litigated hundreds of cases involving electronic discovery and has received numerous awards in the industry, including the TechnoLawyer @ Award. Mr. Lubarsky has been elected to the Executive Committee of the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and is on the editorial boards of several technology publications. He has consulted for numerous companies that provide electronic discovery support services, including Summation Legal Technologies, Inc.; Fios, Inc.; Guidance Software, Inc.; Daticon, LLC; and Zantaz, Inc. Mr. Lubarsky regularly consults with large law firms and Fortune 500 corporations in the area of ESI retention, e-discovery best practices, and litigation holds. Mr. Lubarsky is the author and 2023 update author of chapter 20A.

CLARA RUYAN MARTIN received her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1985 and her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1989. She specializes in the structuring, drafting, negotiation, and implementation of complex corporate and technology transactions. Her corporate work includes mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, corporate finance, and venture representation. Her technology practice is broad, ranging from software licensing and development to strategic alliances and e-commerce. Ms. Martin is an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. She has served on the Cyberlaw Committee of the State Bar of California and is a frequent lecturer on topics such as software licensing agreements, internet-related agreements, complex joint ventures, venture finance, and mergers and acquisitions. Ms. Martin is the author and 2023 update author of chapters 7–8 and 10.

MARIA NAVA is an associate in the Privacy & Data Security Group at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. Ms. Nava counsels clients on a wide variety of privacy and data security issues, including compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Privacy Rights Act, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, the European General Data Protection Regulation, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and other privacy-related rules and regulations. She also handles transactional matters—including drafting and reviewing client policies and technology agreements—and assists with security incident investigations. Ms. Nava attended the University of California, Los Angeles, for both undergraduate and law school. She is admitted to practice in California. She is a 2023 update co-author of chapter 9.

C. WOOK PAK is a partner with Cislo & Thomas LLP, Los Angeles, where he practices all aspects of intellectual property procurement and enforcement, including preparing and filing U.S. and international patent applications in a variety of technological fields, such as mechanical, pharmaceutical, energy, and business methods. He has publications in law and science, including a commentary published in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, and has had a number of speaking engagements regarding patent law. Dr. Pak is a litigator and registered patent attorney. He received his B.S. in Biophysics and Biochemistry from Oregon State University, his Ph.D. in Neuroscience from the University of California, Riverside, and his law degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Dr. Pak is the 2023 update author of chapter 2.

JEFFREY G. SHELDON received his J.D., summa cum laude, from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the Carnegie Institute of Technology; and his M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. His studies in Scotland followed his receipt of a Marshall Scholarship. Mr. Sheldon is a partner in Cislo & Thomas LLP, Los Angeles, and was the founding partner of Sheldon Mak & Anderson PC, Pasadena. He is past president of the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California, past president of the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, and past committee chairman for the AIPLA and IP section of the ABA. Mr. Sheldon served as a consultant in 2023 for chapter 2.

EMMA C. SMIZER is an associate in the Interactive Entertainment and Privacy & Data Groups at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, in Los Angeles. She is a Certified Information Privacy Professional in U.S. data privacy laws (CIPP/US). Her work includes transactional matters for interactive entertainment publishers and developers, with a focus on the cross-section of data privacy and technology agreements. Ms. Smizer received her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Irvine, and her law degree from LMU Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. She is a 2023 update co-author of chapter 9.

ROBERT TERZOLI is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group of Seyfarth Shaw LLP in Washington, D.C. Mr. Terzoli’s practice focuses primarily on false advertising, trademark, copyright, patent, and trade secret litigation in the U.S. federal courts and on counseling and prosecution in the areas of trademark and copyright law. He has experience litigating trademark disputes before the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Terzoli received his B.A. in History from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Terzoli is a 2023 update co-author of chapter 18.

KENNETH L. WILTON is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles, and chair of the firm’s national trademark practice. Mr. Wilton’s practice focuses primarily on false advertising, trademark, copyright, and patent litigation in the U.S. federal courts and on counseling and prosecution in the areas of trademark and copyright law. He has extensive experience litigating trademark disputes before the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Wilton has taught trademark law in practice and internet law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. He is consistently listed in the World Trademark Review’s Top 1000 trademark practitioners worldwide, the International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, and Managing Intellectual Property’s “IP Stars.” In 2019, Mr. Wilton was selected as one of 30 trademark attorneys recognized nationally in Expert Guides’ 2019 edition of Best of the Best USA. Mr. Wilton received his B.A. in History from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his J.D. from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, where he was editor-in-chief of the Hastings Journal of Communications and Entertainment Law. Mr. Wilton is a 2023 update co-author of chapter 18.

RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN is a partner with Hanson Bridgett LLP, Los Angeles, where he has a 360-degree trademark and copyright practice, handling all facets of counseling, clearance, prosecution, enforcement, and litigation domestically and internationally. His practice also includes domain name disputes through the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy and lawsuits involving the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. In addition, Mr. Zerounian has broad experience with litigation involving counterfeit and gray market goods. He serves as a Senior Editor for the International Trademark Association’s Trademark Reporter® and is listed as a top trademark practitioner in the World Trademark Review’s WTR1000 rankings. Mr. Zerounian is the 2023 update author of chapter 3.

Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Law Practice Skills
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Law Practice Skills