Court case

President Donald Trump may go far in living up to his much-ridiculed pledge to open up libel laws to make it easier to sue media outlets. How? Turn no further than Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, a 2014 decision at the US Appeals Court for the DC Circuit authored by recent Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh. At first blush, the decision looks like a win for libel defendants. In fact, when it came out, many reporters highlighted how Kavanaugh poured cold water on the notion that asking a question could be actionable as defamation by implication.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's past rulings suggest a reliably conservative voice on tech. His addition to the highest court in the country could vastly reshape the digital landscape. 

There once was a legendary troll, and from its hideout beneath an overpass of the information superhighway, it prodded into existence the internet we know, love, and increasingly loathe. That troll, Ken ZZ03, struck in 1995. But to make sense of the profound aftereffects—and why Big Tech is finally reckoning with this part of its history—you have to look back even further. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, states that platforms are not liable for the content they host—even when, like Good Samaritans, they try to intervene. Ken ZZ03 would be its first test.

Less than a month after the European Union instituted rules to protect the privacy of its citizens, the United States Supreme Court took an important step to protect Americans against unwarranted government intrusion in criminal investigations. Now it is time for another branch of government—the Congress—to act to protect our privacy the rest of the time. June’s decision in Carpenter v. U.S. (16 U.S. 402) focused on the government’s access to private information.

[Commentary] The Supreme Court recently delivered the most significant antitrust opinion by the Court in more than a decade --  Ohio v. American Express -- one that made it extraordinarily more difficult for the government to rein in certain companies that abuse their market power. In it, the Court dealt a huge blow to the ability of government and private plaintiffs to enforce existing antitrust laws, making it easier for dominant firms — especially those in the tech sector — to abuse their market power with impunity.

Facebook has long had the same public response when questioned about its disruption of the news industry: it is a tech platform, not a publisher or a media company. But in a small courtroom in California’s Redwood City, attorneys for thecompany presented a different message from the one executives have made to Congress, in interviews and in speeches: Facebook, they repeatedly argued, is a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment.

A divided California Supreme Court has ruled that online review site Yelp.com cannot be ordered to remove posts against a San Francisco (CA) law firm that a judge determined were defamatory. The 4-3 ruling came in a closely watched case that internet companies warned could be used to silence online speech. A San Francisco judge determined the posts against attorney Dawn Hassell’s firm were defamatory and ordered Yelp in 2014 to remove them. A second judge and a state appeals court upheld the decision.

Conservative groups, borrowing and building on arguments developed by liberals, have used the First Amendment to justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples, and attacks on the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns. “The libertarian position has become dominant on the right on First Amendment issues,” said Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the Cato Institute. “It simply means that we should be skeptical of government attempts to regulate speech. That used to be an uncontroversial and nonideological point.

In June of 2000, a judge in the US district court for the District of Columbia ruled that Microsoft should be broken up into two separate units—one for Microsoft’s operating system and another for its software products. In June of 2001, an appeals court disagreed. The Microsoft case set a precedent for not breaking up big tech companies, but also prohibited Microsoft from tying Internet Explorer to Windows.

With Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announcing he will retire come July 31, the high court could be headed for a major shift as the president will look to solidify the body’s conservative majority. Here’s a look at how some of his opinions have shaped the technology and telecommunications spheres — and what his absence could mean going forward. A perennial swing vote in his more than 20 years on the high court, Justice Kennedy served as the deciding vote on numerous high-profile legal battles.