Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
This article concentrates on the scope of CDA immunity advertisers and entertainment companies that operate UGC campaigns may enjoy, limitations of the CDA in protecting against these claims and ways to structure UGC campaigns to minimize the risk of liability arising from unauthorized use of individuals' name, likeness and other personal attributes possibly included in UGC submitted as part of a sponsored UGC campaign.
Features
As with many transactional entertainment and sports matters, there are a number of critical tax issues that bear upon the endorser's ultimate take-home pay. This topic divides neatly into U.S. persons working outside the U.S., and non-U.S. persons working inside the U.S. This article discusses U.S. persons working abroad.
Features
Habitually filing <i>Daubert</i> motions for every opposing expert is not smart trial practice. Here's why.
Features
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has restored the $28 million in punitive damages a Philadelphia jury awarded to an Illinois plaintiff who said drugmakers Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. failed to warn her doctor of the risks of breast cancer from using hormonal drugs. The trial judge had reduced the punitive damages award to $1 million.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in that the First Amendment's religion clauses provide for a "ministerial exception." In doing so, the Court promoted religious autonomy at the expense of ministers' rights and society's interest in eradicating discrimination.
Features
As an initial matter, it is patent that, following <i>Global-Tech</i>, the law on willful blindness in most circuits ' at least as reflected in pattern jury instructions ' must change.
Features
Is the benefit test a separate element of liability or an aspect of another element, like breach of duty or scienter? And what counts as a sufficient "benefit"?
Features
In this latest round of bankruptcies following failed leveraged buyouts (LBOs), former shareholders must ask themselves whether the safe harbor of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code really is as calm as it appears ...
