The U.S. Office of the Solicitor General thinks Gonzalez v. Google should be remanded to the lower courts to consider whether YouTube’s recommendations make its owner Google liable under the Antiterrorism Act, it said in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court Wednesday (docket 21-1333).

A data breach at healthcare company Wright & Filippis (W&F) resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive patient and employee data for at least 877,584 individuals, alleged a class action (docket 2:22-cv-12961) Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit.

Parler seeks leave to file a reply memorandum in support of its motions to compel arbitration and to transfer plaintiff Jordan Copeland’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint to U.S. District Court for Nevada, said the right-leaning social media platform in a filing Tuesday (docket 3:22-cv-21243) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Pensacola.

The major studios, plus Netflix, seek a final default judgment against PrimeWire and its co-conspirators that includes $20.7 million in “maximum statutory damages” for willful infringement of 138 copyrighted works, said their motion Tuesday (docket 2:21-cv-09317) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The court previously granted the studios partial default judgment for liability and permanent injunctive relief, leaving the question of money damages for a future motion.

Courts have interpreted the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Act too broadly and social media companies should be held responsible for the content recommended to users by their algorithms, said several amicus briefs filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google (docket 21-1333) Tuesday by advocacy groups, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., 26 states and a group of Israeli generals. “Far from discouraging terrorists, social media platforms actively assist their spread,” said the joint filing from former Israeli Minister of Defense Moshe Ya’alon and other retired Israeli military officers. “The same technology that connects dog lovers with chew-toy suppliers on social media platforms carries a parasitic byproduct that is deadly anti-social.”

The seven consumer plaintiffs in the class action to overturn T-Mobile’s Sprint buy on antitrust grounds “are not customers of T-Mobile, do not purchase T-Mobile services, and have no basis to complain about the quality of those services or T-Mobile’s prices,” said T-Mobile and SoftBank in their memorandum of law Monday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago, in support of their joint motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs, all customers of AT&T or Verizon, allege the anticompetitive nature of the T-Mobile/Sprint combination in 2020 caused their own wireless rates to soar.

A three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans questioned the procedure of Consumers’ Research’s challenge of the FCC’s method for funding the Universal Service Fund under the nondelegation doctrine, during oral argument Monday. Judges also pressed the FCC on whether Congress should be tasked with setting specific funding limitations and how the FCC reviews the quarterly contribution factor calculations made by the Universal Service Administrative Co.

Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Upholding the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Twitter abetted terrorists because the platform was used by ISIS for recruitment (see 2211300073) would have a chilling effect on free speech, open numerous businesses to massive liability, and ignore the difficulties, costs and scale of content moderation, said amicus filings from the U.S Chamber of Commerce, CTA, CCIA and others in Supreme Court case Twitter v. Taamneh (docket 21-1496). “If that is a sufficient basis for liability, intermediaries will no longer be able to function as fora for others’ speech, and free expression will be the loser,” said a joint filing from the ACLU, the R Street Institute,the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and others.

Nimitz Technologies need not worry that the records that Senior U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly for Delaware seeks for investigating third-party funding of Nimitz patent infringement lawsuits would publicly expose Nimitz’s financial secrets or violate attorney-client privilege, Connolly wrote the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit Nov. 30, per an 81-page letter posted Monday (docket 23-103).