From the abstract: "Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, online entities—but not physical--world entities—-are immune from lawsuits related to content authored by their users or customers. As a result, online entities have been able to avoid claims for harms caused by their negligence and defective product designs simply because they operate online. ... The reason for the disparate treatment is the internet’s dramatic evolution over the last two decades. The internet of 1996 served as an information repository and communications channel and was well governed by Section 230 ... But content distribution is not the internet’s only function, and it is even less so now than it was in 1996. The internet also operates as a platform for the delivery of real-world goods and services and requires a correspondingly diverse immunity doctrine. This Article proposes refining online immunity by limiting it to claims that threaten to impose a content-moderation burden on internet defendants. Where a claim is preventable other than by content moderation—for example, by redesigning an app or website—-a plaintiff could freely seek relief, just as in the physical world. This approach empowers courts to identify culpable actors in the virtual world and treat like conduct alike wherever it occurs."

Abstract: "The branch of economics known as “public choice” uses the tools of economics to analyze political behavior. Rejecting idealized versions of government intervention, it assumes that individuals participating in the political system are rational self-interest maximizers (homo economicus). A key insight of public choice is that private firms will endeavor to boost their profits above competitive levels by co-opting government’s unique right to coerce. Such “rent-seeking” behavior typically involves exploiting the self-interest of government officials and is often successful even though it tends to reduce social welfare by softening competition, diverting productive resources to non-productive activities, and destroying the value of competing firms’ productive investments. This article documents instances of rent-seeking and other adverse public choice concerns in digital markets. It considers two broad categories of rent-seeking behavior: efforts to procure an effective subsidy and attempts to raise rivals’ costs. Examples within the former category are (1) news publishers’ attempts to force digital platforms to purchase news snippets and (2) efforts by producers of digital content to free-ride off the investments of operating systems developers. Examples of rent-seeking by raising rivals’ costs include (1) dominant digital platforms’ lobbying for rules with which their rivals will have difficulty complying; (2) efforts by firms competing with platforms that host user-generated content to weaken the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; and (3) the creation and financing of “astroturf” (fake grass-roots) groups that instigate legal action against group members’ competitors. As they craft policies to address purported market failures in digital markets, policy makers should account for potential government failure in the form of enhanced rent-seeking and other public choice concerns."

Abstract: "Section 230 protects internet trolls and websites from liability for defamation and other torts, but not from liability for intellectual property infringement. This essay argues that some plaintiffs may be able to use the right of publicity to bring claims otherwise preempted by Section 230. Specifically, it reflects on whether Kenneth Zeran could have filed a successful right of publicity action."

Abstract: "This Issue Brief explores how Section 230 interacts with the First Amendment. It begins by discussing Section 230’s substantive benefits, then discusses its procedural benefits, and concludes by arguing that proposals to eliminate Section 230 would create critical gaps in the law that the First Amendment would not adequately back-fill. Losing Section 230 would substantially reshape the Internet for the worse. Yet, shockingly, that is exactly the direction so many of our political leaders apparently think we should go."

This casebook chapter "examines the legal issues arising from featuring people in advertisements, including publicity rights and endorsement/testimonial guidelines."

Analyzes the “Blogger’s Law” enacted by the Russian Parliament in 2014 and repealed in 2017, which required registration of bloggers with Russian internet regulator Roskomnadzor. Sets out to “(i) analyse the context and the reasoning behind the introduction of the Bloggers’ Register; (ii) disentangle the relevant legal provisions; and (iii) assess its effectiveness, drawing conclusions based on events in the Russian blogosphere during the period 2014-17.”

Discusses the use of state constitutional provisions to enforce free expression interests on privately owned social media platforms -- like Facebook and Twitter.

Argues for the unconstitutionality of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol rules allowing agents to search social media content on the phones and devices of people crossing into the United States.

Argues that “copyright protection for the blogging community remains inadequate” and bloggers “should be afforded greater copyright protection.” Identifies “archaic registration methods” and the DMCA safe harbors as roadblocks. Suggests blogs be registrable with the Copyright Office as serial works and discusses the wrinkles with the approach.

Provides a “summary of the variety of anti-SLAPP statutes on the books”; “explores judicial opinions in which defendants sought to come under the protective umbrella of these laws in defamation and privacy cases that involved social media, blog, or consumer review postings online”; “offers illustrations of merits determinations in social media anti-SLAPP cases and explores the interaction between anti-SLAPP statutes and 47 U.S.C. § 230 in cases involving online intermediaries”; and “provides analysis and concluding perspectives on this important aspect of free expression online.”