The Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “The dominant understanding among U.S. Circuit Courts is that the Communications Decency Act is an immunity statute that protects an ISP from any kind of civil suit for publishing information from a third party.  Among the Circuits that have adopted this position are the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 10th.  There have been some partial dissenters from this view, including the 7th and the 9th Circuits. . . . In a recent decision, the 4th Circuit has reaffirmed its position that the CDA provides ISPs with immunity from suit for information created and developed by third parties. S ee Nemet Chevrolet v. Consumeraffairs.com, 4th Cir., No. 08-2097 (Dec., 29. 2009).”

Law.com:  “Plaintiff sues your client, claiming that his injuries have significantly affected his lifestyle. He is unable to work, travel or bowl. Not surprisingly, his spouse alleges loss of consortium. On the eve of trial, you discover pictures and other details on a social networking website about plaintiff’s recent trip to the International Bowling Museum & Hall of Fame, including a picture of plaintiff proudly holding a fluorescent orange bowling ball and a four-foot tall gilded trophy dated four days earlier. As you approach the witness with printouts of the web pages, you are stopped in your tracks: “Objection, lack of foundation.”

If proper steps are not taken to admit the evidence, the value of this information may be lost.

E-Commerce Law:  “In Jensen v. Modern Aero, Inc., 2010 WL 88229 (Minn. App. Jan. 12, 2010), the Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that a defendant’s website, which lauded defendant’s  ‘worldwide; expertise,’ listed a toll-free telephone number for defendant, and provided an electronic form for customers to contact the defendant, was insufficient to confer general personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of negligence claims brought by the estate of a pilot who died in the crash of his small private airplane.   In rejecting Jensen’s argument in favor of general jursidiction, the Court applied the reasoning articulated in Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir. 2003) in which the ‘critical question’ is whether ‘a defendant’s activity in the forum state is continuous and systematic’.”