Thais Cardoso Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the plain- tiff “could have moved the court for a continuance in order to con- duct additional discovery” her failure to do so “indicat[ed] her po- sition that the record was sufficient”
• finding that unlawful use of name and likeness claims brought under Florida statutory law and common law are “substantially identical”
• stating that, while district court should have addressed § 230(e)(2) before invoking grant of immunity, it was unnecessary to address difficult issue of applying CDA because Florida right of publicity claim would not withstand motion to dismiss under state law
• affirming denial of statutory and common law misappropriation claims “on the ground that [defendant] did not use [plaintiff]’s image for the purpose of directly promoting a product or service”
• discussing but not decision in Atlantic Recording Corp. to argue that her right of publicity claims are not preempted by the CDA. (See ECF Nos. 58 at 13-14, 60 at 12-13, 61 at 3-4.
• noting Section 230 precludes liability for information originating from third parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).