Google and YouTube seek an earlier date for the hearing on their motion to dismiss a freedom of speech lawsuit brought by Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said their motion Monday (docket 3:23-cv-03880) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Google requests a hearing Nov. 7, the same date as the hearing on Kennedy’s motion for preliminary injunction to allow both motions to be heard on the same day, said the filing. The court had scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss Jan. 16. In the event the court grants Google’s motion to dismiss, it will render the preliminary injunction “moot,” it said. The defendant also asked to advance the deadline for filing its motion to dismiss by six days and to reset the opposition and reply deadlines accordingly, it said. Kennedy didn’t consent to the proposed stipulation but said he doesn’t plan to file a formal opposition, said Google’s motion. This month, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson for Northern California ordered the court’s Aug. 23 order denying Kennedy's application for a temporary restraining order to be converted into an order denying a preliminary injunction (see 2309130013). Kennedy's freedom of speech lawsuit alleges “the extraordinary steps the United States government has taken under the leadership of Joe Biden to silence people it does not want Americans to hear.”

The strategic partnership agreement that Netflix struck with SK Telecom and SK Broadband ends three years of litigation in South Korea brought by Netflix over network usage costs, said Strand Consult in a research note Monday. Network traffic from Netflix ballooned on SK Broadband’s network “in a relatively short period,” and SK Broadband attempted to negotiate with Netflix for cost recovery and sought mediation from the Korean Communication Commission, said Strand. Netflix rejected that process, then brought a lawsuit against SK Broadband, claiming it had no obligation to pay or negotiate for use of SK Broadband’s network, it said. The court rejected Netflix’s claim, saying the terms of compensation should be resolved by the parties themselves, it said. The litigation went through 10 court hearings on appeal, and appeared to grow “progressively worse for Netflix,” it said. The partnership “symbolizes the recognition of the need for broadband providers to recover costs and to find sustainable business models,” said Strand. The partnership works for Netflix and SK, “as both entities have financial relationships with the end user and the parties are in position to share the revenue accordingly,” it said. “Notably the end user still bears the cost, but Netflix’s revenue is ostensibly reduced. Such an arrangement works for streaming, “but not necessarily for the large search and social network platforms as they do not have financial relationships with end users,” it said. But it does signal that broadband providers “could do more to partner with video streamers, and this could be helpful for competitors to Netflix,” it said.

The FTC brought its action against Walmart to address the retailer’s “years-long refusal” to adequately secure its money transfer services, resulting in millions of dollars in consumer losses from illegal telemarketing and fraud-induced money transfers, said the agency’s memorandum Friday (docket 1:22-cv-03372) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in opposition to Walmart’s Aug. 11 motion to dismiss the FTC’s June 30 first amended complaint (see 2308140007). On the FTC’s original claim that Walmart violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the court said the FTC needed to provide more detail about the underlying TSR violations and Walmart’s “knowledge or conscious avoidance of those violations,” it said. Heeding the court’s directive, the FTC filed an amended complaint “that does exactly that,” it said. The amended complaint “describes the red flags and suspicious characteristics that clearly distinguish those categories of illegal transactions from routine money transfers,” it said. The amended complaint also provides additional details about Walmart’s failure “for years to do anything to attempt to comply with the TSR’s ban on cash-to-cash money transfers in telemarketing transactions,” it said. That ban “applies to all telemarketing transactions -- not just those involving fraud,” it said. Walmart again moved to dismiss the FTC’s TSR claims, arguing the amended complaint’s allegations “still are not enough,” it said. “It attempts to raise the pleading bar even higher, nitpicking about a variety of purported deficiencies, and essentially demanding the FTC prove its claims at the pleading stage,” it said. The court should reject each of Walmart’s arguments and rule that the commission “has plausibly alleged a series of assisting and facilitating claims under the TSR,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter for Southern New York in Manhattan denied former Amazon third-party seller Cowin Technology's motion to remand to New York Supreme Court its petition to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor, said Carter’s signed order Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-03054). Cowin’s amended complaint and motion to vacate are due Sept. 27, and Amazon’s opposition and cross-motion to confirm the arbitrator’s award are due Oct. 25, with Cowin’s reply due Nov. 1, said the order. Cowin is seeking to recover $1.09 million in sales proceeds that Amazon seized -- and the arbitrator let Amazon keep -- when it deactivated Cowin’s account and accused the seller of violating its business solutions agreement by manipulating product reviews (see 2305100001).

U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson for Northern California ordered the court’s Aug. 23 order (see 2308240039) denying Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to be converted into an order denying a preliminary injunction, said a Tuesday filing (docket 3:23-cv-03880) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. A proposed order by counsel for both parties Tuesday noted the court addressed the merits in considering Kennedy’s TRO application and concluded he is not likely to prevail on the merits or suffer irreparable harm. Kennedy contended that the denial of his application for a TRO is tantamount to a denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction; Google did not oppose. All deadlines related to the motion for a preliminary injunction are vacated, it said.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit should overturn a court panel's July ruling (see 2307280058) upholding the Copyright Royalty Board’s ruling on rates for webcast music for 2021-2025, said the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee in an en banc appeal Tuesday. In that case, NRB argued the final rates discriminated against religious broadcasters by not giving them the same rates as fellow noncommercial broadcaster NPR. NRB was joined in that court challenge by NAB and Sound Exchange, though each entity had separate grievances with the CRB ruling. The three-judge panel rejected all three arguments, but NRB is the lone en banc appellant. The D.C. Circuit ruling conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent on religious discrimination, and doesn’t acknowledge that the CRB conceded a disparity exists between the treatment of NRB and NPR. “Accordingly, en banc review is warranted,” said the filing.

It’s “beyond dispute” that the social media case brought against dozens of Biden administration officials by the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri involves “the same acts and transactions” as in the putative class action in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles against the major social media companies, said the California plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Reznick, in a notice Monday (docket 2:22-cv-09438). He was referring to the 5th Circuit’s opinion Friday upholding much of the July 4 injunction that bars officials from the White House, the Office of the Surgeon General, the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from pressuring social media companies to moderate their content (see 2309110001). The 5th Circuit opinion affirming U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s “broad and sweeping” injunction will “undoubtedly impact the issues” in the California case, said Reznick. The 5th Circuit’s opinion is “a landmark case for First Amendment jurisprudence that will assuredly be appealed by both sides” and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court “in the current term,” it said. Plaintiffs Richard Jackson, Julie Briggs and Gregg Buchwalter in the Los Angeles class action allege the Democratic National Committee and the Biden administration colluded to suppress and censor disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content on social media platforms (see 2307060006).

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a Monday afternoon order (docket 23-30445), denied DOJ’s emergency motion for a partial stay, pending its issuance of a mandate, of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 injunction barring dozens of Biden administration officials from pressuring social media companies to moderate their content (see 2309110001). The 5th Circuit granted DOJ’s alternative motion to issue the mandate immediately, putting into effect the significant changes in the injunction that the court imposed in its Friday opinion. That opinion vacated the injunction as it applied to officials from three federal agencies, and it struck nine of the 10 prohibitions barring unlawful First Amendment conduct against officials from the White House, the Office of the Surgeon General, the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. DOJ’s emergency motion had sought either form of relief to avoid the “improper result” of allowing the district court’s preliminary injunction to regain effect after the administrative stay expires Sept. 18, even after having been held “invalid” by the 5th Circuit. In the normal course of business, the mandate wouldn’t have issued until Oct. 31. DOJ’s emergency motion had asked the 5th Circuit for a ruling by Wednesday. The court instead took less than three hours to render an order.

Georgia courts have general jurisdiction over OpenAI, and OpenAI “mistakenly argues that general jurisdiction only exists in the place of incorporation and the principal place of business,” said plaintiff Mark Walters’ response Friday (docket 1:23-cv-03122) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in opposition to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss. Walters also filed an amended complaint Friday against OpenAI, as he said he would do in a joint preliminary report Sept. 4 (see 2309060026). Walters alleges OpenAI’s ChatGPT service defamed him to journalist Fred Riehl, but OpenAI’s July 21 motion to dismiss said the lawsuit "fails to establish the basic elements of a defamation claim" (see 2307240031). OpenAI “has chosen to register to do business in Georgia as a foreign entity,” said Walters’ opposition. It also has a registered agent in Georgia and a registered agent address, it said. The Georgia Supreme Court “has ruled that an entity that registers to do business in Georgia is considered under Georgia law to be a resident of Georgia,” it said. OpenAI is thus “at home” in Georgia “for the purposes of general personal jurisdiction,” it said. Because OpenAI is subject to the general jurisdiction of courts in Georgia, the Northern District of George has personal jurisdiction over OpenAI, it said.

Charter Communications seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Bridger Mahlum, its former director-state government affairs, from working for BroadbandMT or any other direct competitor and to keep him from divulging Charter’s trade secrets (see 2308210001), said its emergency motion Friday (docket 3:23-cv-01106) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven. The court’s Aug. 30 order granted Charter’s request for a temporary restraining order against Mahlum, giving him until Sept. 29 to show cause why it shouldn’t issue a preliminary injunction in Charter’s favor. But Mahlum can’t make such a showing, “as he has blatantly violated the valid, enforceable restrictive covenants” in his Charter employment agreements and threatens to misappropriate Charter’s trade secrets for BroadbandMT’s benefit, if he hasn’t already done so, said Charter’s emergency motion. “Emergency preliminary injunctive relief is necessary in this case,” it said. Mahlum’s employment for BroadbandMT “is precisely the type of unfair competition” that the noncompete covenants in his agreements “are designed to guard against,” it said. Mahlum’s unlawful activities “immediately and irreparably harm Charter and may be remedied only by emergency and preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of a separate arbitration Charter filed against Mahlum,” it said. The parties’ arbitration agreement “contains a specific carve out for actions seeking temporary and preliminary injunctive relief,” it said.