In the age of group chats and rumor mills, telling even one person a damaging rumor can unleash consequences far beyond the intent of the original conversation. But when does gossip cross the legal line?
A recent decision out of the Central District of Illinois, Holzgrafe v. Lozier, offers key guidance on this interesting defamation principle.
Yes.Continue Reading When Gossip Becomes Defamation: Liability for Rumors and Their Ripple Effects
The “libel-proof plaintiff” doctrine provides an independent ground for dismissing a defamation cause of action on the basis that a person with a widespread reputation for bad or dishonest behavior may not recover. Often defendants will raise this doctrine when moving to dismiss a complaint or moving for summary judgment. The underlying rationale for the application of the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine across federal and state courts to a plaintiff with a well-known “sullied reputation” is that an alleged defamatory statement pertaining to a plaintiff’s reputation, or crimes, cannot further harm such a plaintiff’s already-damaged reputation.
Should California courts permit litigants to conduct discovery into litigation funding, namely whether a third party is funding their adversary’s litigation efforts?
Certainly, parties defending a case will want to know, “Who are we really litigating against, and what are their true motives?” “Who is the real party in interest here?” And even if a litigation funder is not the same thing as a plaintiff, a funder may have a significant role to play in the case. After all, “[h]e who pays the piper may not always call the tune, but he’ll likely have an influence on the playlist.” Conlon v. Rosa, No. 295907, 2004 WL 1627337, at *2 (Mass. Land Ct. July 21, 2004).
So, are litigation funding arrangements discoverable? While courts across the country are split on this issue, state legislatures and select judicial districts have begun to intervene and enact disclosure requirements relating to such funding.Continue Reading To Be or Not to Be…Discoverable: Third-Party Litigation Funders
On April 24, 2025, the California Supreme Court held that contract clauses that limit damages for injuries caused by willful tortious conduct are prohibited by Section 1668 of the California Civil Code.
In New England Country Foods, LLC v. VanLaw Food Products, Inc., No. S282968, 2025 Cal. LEXIS 2299 (Cal. Apr. 24, 2025), a barbecue sauce company sued a manufacturer for allegedly secretly attempting to replicate its popular barbecue sauce and sell it to Trader Joe’s. The barbecue sauce company, New England Country Foods (NECF), asserted both contract and tort claims against VanLaw, but VanLaw responded that the claims were barred by a contractual clause between the two parties that purported to limit damages for willful injuries caused by either party.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Finds Parties Cannot Contract Away Liability for Willful Injury
On March 6, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed that historical events are not subject to copyright protection.
This is true even if the events were discovered through original research. In Ackerman v. Pink, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40028 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2025), the court explained that although copyright protection applies to an artistic expression of historical events, the events themselves are not subject to copyright protection.
This case began in August 2023, when Plaintiff Daniel Ackerman brought claims for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference against individuals and companies that contributed to the production of the 2023 film Tetris. Ackerman alleged that the film contained “glaring similarities” to his own book, The Tetris Effect: The Game That Hypnotized The World, which was copyrighted and published in September 2016. Ackerman further asserted that the creators of the film used his book to create the film without his consent. To substantiate his claims, Ackerman provided the court with an “exhaustive analysis and examination of the film and the book” that outlined “the substantial similarities between the two works.”Continue Reading New York District Court Confirms Limits of Copyright Protection Regarding Historical Events
On February 25, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction are not eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) because they do not qualify as “prevailing parties.” See Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. ___ (2025). Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, explained that obtaining a preliminary injunction does not confer “prevailing party” status under § 1988. The Court reasoned that preliminary injunctions do not provide “enduring judicial relief on the merits.”
This case began in late 2018 when a group of Virginia drivers challenged a Virginia statute that permitted the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the licenses of individuals who failed to pay court fines. The drivers asserted that this statute violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause “as applied to people who cannot afford to pay due to their modest financial circumstances.” The United States District Court for the District of Virginia granted the drivers a preliminary injunction in December 2018, thereby prohibiting the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles from suspending licenses for failure to pay court fines.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Decision Prohibits Plaintiff Recovery of Attorney’s Fees After a Preliminary Injunction Win
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit against the producers of MTV Floribama Shore in MGFB Properties, Inc. v. Viacom Inc., 54 F.4th 670 (11th Cir. 2022) (the “Order”). The Court’s Order sought to strike a balance between the trademark protections of the Lanham Act and the artistic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
At the heart of the MGFB dispute were two words, “Flora-Bama” and “Floribama.” They refer to a popular beach area that borders the states of Florida and Alabama. “Flora-Bama” is a federal trademark registered by MGFB Properties, Inc. (MGFB). Order at 673. Together with Flora-Bama Management LLC and Flora-Bama Old S.A.L.T.S. Inc. (collectively, “Trademark Owners”), MGFB owns and operates a relatively well-known lounge on the Florida-Alabama border, the Flora-Bama Lounge, Package and Oyster Bar (“Lounge”). Id. at 672. “Floribama” is included in the title of a reality series, MTV Floribama Shore, developed and produced by 495 Productions Holdings LLC, 495 Productions Services LLC, and ViacomCBS Inc. (“Viacom”) (collectively, “Producers”) as a spin-off of their reality series, Jersey Shore. Id. In the spin-off, the Producers wanted to feature a subculture of “young [S]outhern folks” who spend time on the Gulf of Mexico, “extending from the Florida panhandle into Alabama and Mississippi.” Id. at 674.”Flora-Bama” Trademark Owners sued Floribama Shore Producers for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Florida statutory and common law. Id. at 676. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Producers on all claims, and Trademark Owners appealed. Id. at 677. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the finding that MTV Floribama Shore passes the Rogers test. Id. at 683–84.Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Affirms MTV Floribama Shore Does Not Infringe Flora-Bama Trademark
A federal district court judge in the Central District of California recently dismissed a choreographer’s claims against Epic Games Inc. (“Epic Games”) arising out of Epic Games’ alleged use of his dance moves in its Fortnite video game. See Kyle Hanagami v. Epic Games Inc., No. 22-cv-02063-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2022) (Dkt. 45) (“the Order”).
As the Order explains, Fortnite features a virtual reality world where players can choose an avatar to represent them as they explore, build, and destroy structures, and battle each other in player-to-player combat. Fortnite players can customize their avatars by utilizing a variety of features, including “emotes,” which are dances that avatars perform while attending concerts or to celebrate a victory in a battle royale game, among other things. Choreographer Kyle Hanagami brought copyright infringement and unfair competition claims against Epic Games based on his allegations that one of Fortnite‘s nearly 500emotes incorporated a handful of dance moves from a five-minute routine he posted to YouTube in 2017 and obtained a copyright for in 2021.Continue Reading California District Court Holds Dance Moves in Fortnite Did Not Infringe Copyright
A Michigan State Court recently dismissed claims against Euclid Media Group, the parent company to several media properties, including Deadline Detroit, Inc. (“Deadline”), for publishing articles about a Plaintiff’s conduct at a Birmingham Public School Board of Education meeting. See Paul Marcum vs. Euclid Media Group, Docket No. 2022-191878-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct. Jan. 4, 2022) (Dkt. 129) (“Order”).
On August 23, 2021, Deadline published an article, “Man Who Gave Nazi Salute at Birmingham Schools Meeting Loses Tennis Job” (the “Article”). The Article asserted that Plaintiff had gestured and uttered a Nazi salute toward two African American women and a Jewish woman who had voiced their support for a classroom mask mandate. The Article not only identified Plaintiff by name, but it also included his picture and stated Plaintiff had been “accused of flashing a Nazi salute and repeatedly chanting ‘Heil Hitler.’”Continue Reading Truth Remains an Absolute Defense Against Defamation Claims
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently upheld the federal cyberstalking statute against a constitutional challenge. See United States v. Ho Ka Yung, 37 F.4th 70 (3d Cir. 2022). The Third Circuit narrowly construed the statute’s intent element to require an intent to make the victim fear death or bodily injury or to cause the victim distress through threats or intimidation.
According to the opinion, the case begins with Yung’s application to Georgetown Law. The admission interview went poorly, and Yung was rejected. In turn, Yung allegedly embarked on a cyber-campaign against the unsuspecting interviewer, including creating fake blog posts as the interviewer bragging about raping women and children, filing false reports accusing the interviewer of sexual assault, and impersonating the interviewer’s wife in online sex ads. After the FBI became involved, Yung was charged with cyberstalking.Continue Reading Third Circuit Upholds Federal Cyberstalking Law