§Why CasetextPricing

16 Cited authorities

  1. Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.

    570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 264 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Yahoo! was immune from liability for negligently declining to remove indecent third-party content

  2. Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.

    934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that features, functions, and algorithms which analyzed user content and recommended connection "are tools meant to facilitate the communication and content of others"

  3. Gonzalez v. Google LLC

    2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021)   Cited 61 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting conspiracy claim absent allegations that "Google tacitly agreed to commit homicidal terrorist acts with ISIS"

  4. Casterson v. Superior Court

    101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 102 times
    In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.

  5. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 80 times
    Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

  6. Cross v. Facebook, Inc.

    14 Cal.App.5th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[i]t cannot be disputed that Facebook's website" is a public forum within the meaning of section 425.16(b)

  7. Lemmon v. Snap, Inc.

    995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Snap is not entitled to immunity under Section 230 for claims arising out of the " 'predictable consequences of' designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encourages dangerous behavior"

  8. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

  9. Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.

    60 Cal.App.5th 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Murphy, Twitter's removal of the plaintiff's posts and account allegedly violated Twitter's own user agreement and enforced its own hateful conduct policy in a discriminatory manner.

  10. Hassell v. Bird

    5 Cal.5th 522 (Cal. 2018)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discerning "an intent to shield Internet intermediaries from the burdens associated with defending against state-law claims that treat them as the publisher or speaker of third party content, and from compelled compliance with demands for relief that, when viewed in the context of a plaintiff's allegations, similarly assign them the legal role and responsibilities of a publisher qua publisher"