Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the intellectual property exception in § 230(e)(2) was not intended to cover intellectual property claims brought under state law
• concluding that the intellectual property exception in § 230(e)(2) was not intended to cover intellectual property claims brought under state law
• holding that CDA § 230 provided immunity from state unfair competition and false advertising actions
• holding that CDA § 230 immunity applies to state unfair competition and false advertising actions
• holding that CDA §230 immunity applies to state unfair competition and false advertising 14 actions
• holding that the exception applies only to claims under federal law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).