On October 16, 2007, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment protected the use of player names and statistics on fantasy baseball sites established by C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc.    C.B.C.  brought a declaratory judgement action against Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. to permit the unlicensed use of names and statistics of major league baseball players in connection with fantasy baseball products available on-line.   The district court granted summary judgment in favor of C.B.C and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals completed the sweep by affirming the district court in C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing Inc., v.  Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P.

 In affirming the district court, the 8th Circuit seemed to espouse the broader proposition that the use of information in the public domain is protected by the First Amendment.  "First, the information used in CBC's fantasy baseball games is all readily available in the public domain, and it would be strange law that a person would not have a first amendment right to use information that is available to everyone."    The court also countered arguments that the use of statistics wasn't speech at all.  One particularly interesting argument by the Court related to the protection of economic interests under the right of publicity,  stating that "major league baseball players are rewarded, and handsomely, too, for their participation in games and can earn additional large sums from endorsements and sponsorship arrangements."  Sounds like the court followed the Red Sox media hyped romp through the playoffs to the exclusion of the 8th Circuit's own small market Kansas City Royals team.    (Image licensed from Jeffrey Beall under Creative Commons)

Updated Oct. 26, 2007  to add a link to the document - see:  Principles for User Generated Content Services

Several of the largest media companies have agreed to use technology to eliminate copyright-infringing content uploaded by Web users and to block any pirated material before it is publicly accessible.  That is part of a set of principles designed to "offer a road map for unlocking the enormous potential of online video and user-generated content," Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger said in a statement issued by the participating companies.

Some of the other companies involved are Viacom Inc, Walt Disney Co, Microsoft Corp, News Corp's Fox and MySpace units, CBS Corp, General Electric Co's NBC Universal, and online video services such as Veoh Networks and Dailymotion.  Notably absent was Google, owner of YouTube.

Essentially, the copyright holders in the group have agreed not to pursue Internet companies for infringement claims if their sites adhere to certain principles. Those principles include eliminating copyright-infringing content uploaded by users to Web sites, and blocking any infringing material before it is publicly accessible.  The pact reportedly is not legally binding, but more of a trust-building exercise among the companies, according to the Wall Street Journal report. 

That is how Raymond T. Nimmer explains a trio of decisions by that court that have been handed down in the last several months.  Collectively, the decisions strike down arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and choice of law/forum selection clauses in various agreements. 

In Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc., the Ninth Circuit, focussing on the concept of procedural unconscionability, found a mandatory arbitration and forum selection clause included in a franchise agreement unconscionable.  The reason cited by the court was that the clause lacked mutuality where the franchisor could use the judicial process in some circumstances, but the franchisee could not.  Of course, according to that reasoning, presumably each and every contract clause would have to have mirror image mutuality.  Nimmer points out that this has never been a requirement of contract law.  The court also cited as a basis for its reasoning, the conclusion that the forum selection clause had "no justification other than as a means of maximizing an advantage over [Franchisees]."  Nimmer's take on that is basically…right-so the problem with that would be?

The next case in the trio is Douglas v. U.S. District Court, where the Ninth Circuit held that an amendment of an online agreement lacked assent.  The court went on to conclude that even if there had been assent, the terms for waiver of class action rights and mandatory arbitration were unconscionable.  In doing so, the Court noted the stance it had taken in Nagrampa that the mere fact that a customer has meaningful choices as to other service providers does not defeat a claim of procedural unconscionability.  In other words, the customer is free to shop around for other service providers who may have different contractual terms.  According to the Ninth Circuit, the customer need not do so, and it can simply ignore the terms with the service provider it chooses.

The last case is Davis v. O'Melveny & Myers.  In the Davis case, the Ninth Circuit held that an arbitration clause in an agreement with an employee was unconscionable.  Nimmer explains that the Davis court found the agreement "procedurally unconscionable because the law firm did not offer the employee the option of rejecting the clause and continuing as an employee with an unmodified contract."

I guess it might be helpful to back up a bit, and talk about when an agreement, or part of an agreement, can be disregarded as unconscionable.  Historically, courts have required both substantive and procedural unconscionability to exist before striking down an agreement. In general, substantive unconscionability exists when an agreement itself is so one-sided that it shocks the senses, while procedural unconscionability focuses on the bargaining process (or lack thereof) used to reach the final agreement. The current view is that these two elements must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability. 

In effect, the Ninth Circuit appears to be expanding the concept of procedural unconscionability to essentially eliminate the ability of companies to include mandatory arbitration, class action waivers, or forum selection clauses in any standard, non-negotiated contracts.  Under the views of the Ninth Circuit, companies do not have the option of presenting a take it or leave it contract to their customers (even though the customers could choose other service providers).  The Ninth Circuit, instead, is simply zapping those provisions out of standard contracts, which Nimmer argues is the kind of thing typically reserved to the legislature (and courts on the planet Xenon). 

Photo courtesy of David Darkmatter under Creative Commons

On Wednesday, a federal judge in California granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Target Corp. filed by the Baltimore-based National Federation for the Blind under the American's with Disabilities Act and two state law claims. 

"This is a tremendous step forward for blind people throughout the country who for too long have been denied equal access to the Internet economy," said Marc Maurer, president of the NFB. "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind."

This comes on the heels of the DOJ settlement with Sylvan Learning Centers, and bodes well for increased accessibility for blind web surfers.  Want to make your website more accessible?  Check out the World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Here's the E-Commerce Times Article with more details.

The TechLawJournal has two articles today that do an excellent job of summarizing the state of the law as it applies to web sites and the ADA, and the recent settlement agreement between the Department of Justice and Sylvan Learning Centers.  The settlement agreement imposes on Sylvan obligations of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  This is not necessarily consistent with the limited judicial precedent on the topic.  The articles are reproduced below with permission from the TLJ.  By the way, although much of it is subscription based, this type of excellent content is typical of what you will find at David Carney's TLJ.

Click to read more ...

This is a tremendous lecture from Randy Pausch, given as part of the "Last Lecture" series, where professors are asked to speak to their audience as if they were giving their last lecture, on the topics that are most important to them.   Pausch, a Carnegie Mellon University computer-science professor, had coincidentally just  been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and is expected to live just a few months, making his presentation particularly poignant.  This is one brilliant guy, and he provides his audience with an entertaining view of life's lessons, delivered in an upbeat presentation that will give you a fresh outlook on life, work, and personal fulfillment.  The talk is titled "How to Live Your Childhood Dreams".  Not your typical fare for the TechKnowledgy Blog, but the fact that Pausch is a virtual reality pioneer (visit Alice) was enough of an excuse to share this with you all.  It is a gem.

Here is a link where you can watch the complete lecture

Here is a link to the transcript

Time Management Slides from Randy Pausch

SlashDot on the lecture