On August 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) extended the deadline for the second round of public comments on its proposed new “net neutrality” rules by three business days to September 15, 2014. The extension comes in response to the overwhelming one million plus comments received by the FCC on the proposed new rules, and mirrors a similar three day extension to the initial commentary period in July of 2014. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler outlined his proposed new net neutrality rules in April of 2014, but met with fierce opposition from critics who argued the rules would let content companies like Netflix pay Internet Service Providers for faster delivery to their customers, thereby slowing speeds for users of other sites. The FCC intends to review all comments and establish new net neutrality rules by the end of 2014.

In Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No: 2:14-cv-01038 (U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, complaint filed July 10, 2014), the Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon.com for allegedly permitting children to collectively incur millions of dollars in purchases on their parents’ credit cards without their parents’ knowledge or consent while playing mobile apps. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Amazon.com to refund unauthorized charges. It also seeks to prevent the company from billing account holders for in-app charges made without their consent.

In Joude et al. v. Wordpress Foundation et al., Case No. C 14-01656 (U.S. District Court, N.D. California, order entered July 3, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that the owner of the WordPress blogging platform was not contractually obligated to remove content that violated the platform’s terms of use provisions forbidding bloggers from impersonating others. The court found that the provision at issue created an obligation for bloggers rather than the platform, and that the terms of use contained other language that expressly reserved the platform’s discretion as to whether to remove violative content.

In Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, Case No. 13-5946 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, ordered entered June 16, 2014), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a gossip Web site retained immunity from liability in a state law defamation action for user-generated posts, pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), despite using the provocative domain name “thedirty.com” and adding brief commentary to the posts. In reversing the underlying district court ruling, the court applied the Ninth Circuit’s “material contribution” test, finding that the site did not lose immunity as a developer of the content under the CDA because it did not materially contribute to the alleged unlawfulness. Section 230 of the CDA provides immunity from liability to interactive computer service providers as publishers of others’ content, so long as the provider is not responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of the material.

In Graziosi v. City of Greenville, Case No: 4:12-CV-68 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division, order entered December 3, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi held that a police sergeant could not pursue a free speech retaliation claim against the city of Greenville, Mississippi or its police chief after she was fired from the police department for posting on the mayor’s Facebook page that it was “totally unacceptable” the department had not sent a representative to the funeral of an officer killed on duty. Although the sergeant made the post from her personal computer while off duty, the court found her speech unprotected because it was not made as a private citizen speaking on a matter of public concern. The department’s interest in maintaining confidence in its leadership and discipline policy outweighed any constitutional right the sergeant had in making the speech.

In Trout Point Lodge Limited v. Handshoe, Cause No. 1:12CV90 (U.S. District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division, order entered December 11, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi held that a Canadian plaintiff who filed suit in the U.S. to enforce a Canadian defamation judgment that was unenforceable in the U.S. must pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees as provided for under the SPEECH Act, despite the defendant’s comments being willfully offensive. The SPEECH Act was enacted to quell “libel tourism,” the act of bringing a defamation suit in a country with more plaintiff-friendly defamation laws. The Act makes foreign defamation judgments unenforceable unless the foreign jurisdiction applied at least as much protection for speech as would U.S. law.