TVEyes' petition for Supreme Court review of a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the company's copyright fight with Fox News (see 1809120044) was denied, the Supreme Court said in docket 18-321 Monday.

Google and DOJ agreed alleged victims don’t have the right to sue the company in a case involving its $8.5 million data privacy settlement (see 1811060054). The filings are in Frank v. Gaos (docket 17-961), a Supreme Court online privacy case where Google asks the high court to uphold the settlement directed to charitable and academic organizations instead of alleged victims. After oral argument (see 1810310043), the high court requested supplemental briefs on whether plaintiffs have the right to sue Google. Meanwhile, the petitioner and respondent agreed alleged victims have standing. Unauthorized sharing of user data warrants action in court, regardless of proof of further harm, consumers argued Friday. The opposing party, Competitive Enterprise Institute Litigation Director Ted Frank, agreed, arguing the “best view is that plaintiffs have sufficiently pled standing, because they allege a congressionally recognized injury consistent with those recognized in historical practice.” The alleged victims haven't established standing through required concrete injury, Google argued. The solicitor general argued, “Nothing in the common law suggests that disclosures of the kind forbidden by the [Stored Communications Act] categorically create concrete harms.”

The idea that Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512(h) pre-empts unmasking lawsuits against John Doe defendants is "a creative argument, but not a meritorious one," Santa Clara University Director-High Tech Law Institute Professor Eric Goldman blogged Wednesday. Section 512(h) covers subpoenas of service providers for identification of an alleged copyright infringer. Goldman cited Monday's docket 18-cv-00571-EAW decision (in Pacer) by U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford of Rochester, New York, denying a motion to quash a third-party subpoena that adult film producer and streaming service Strike 3 sought against the defendant's ISP for the identity of the John Doe whom Strike 3 accused of BitTorrent piracy of company content. The defendant argued allowing service of a subpoena on a third-party ISP conflicted with DMCA privacy provisions and the Communications Act, but that doesn't acknowledge a Communications Act exception allowing such a subpoena, or that the vast majority of opinions in similar cases have granted leave to serve those subpoenas, Wolford said. She said most Strike 3 suits end in voluntary dismissal after subpoenas are served, but there's no evidence to back the John Doe's claim Strike 3 "is engaging in copyright troll litigation tactics."

U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in Manhattan ordered sealed Wednesday an unspecified contract complaint that LG Electronics filed against St. Lawrence Communications, owner of patents germane to the adaptive multi-rate wideband (AMR-WB) speech codec for cellphones, court records (in Pacer) show. SLC filed 10 patent infringement complaints against various carriers and smartphone OEMs since 2014, all but one in U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, records show. In a November 2014 complaint (in Pacer), SLC accused LG of violating five patents on AMR-WB-enabled HD Voice technology. LG countersued (in Pacer) in August 2015 seeking declaratory judgments that it was innocent of infringement and accusing SLC of licensing its patents on terms that weren't fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. LG and SLC appeared to settle that dispute in January 2016, records show. Neither company commented Wednesday.

Given the time and resources the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, spent on previous copyright litigation against Cox, it makes sense for it to handle similar civil claims brought by music labels (see 1808020009), Judge Liam O'Grady said in a docket 18-cv-00950-LO-JFA memorandum opinion (in Pacer) Monday denying a Cox motion to transfer the case. O'Grady said though Cox claims the court's decision in the BMG suit on Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection won't be relevant to the new suit by Sony Music and others, that ruling "will at the very least touch on the issues presented here." Conversely, the Northern District of Georgia, where Cox seeks transfer, hasn't had occasion to examine the DMCA issue, he said. Cox didn't comment Tuesday.

A California woman of Chinese descent was fired Aug. 1 from Roku as a senior software engineer because her Indian department head preferred to hire other Indians and South Asians, she alleged in a racial and sexual discrimination complaint (in Pacer) Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose. Beijia Beckett, a naturalized U.S. citizen who worked for Roku for about 40 months, also was paid “less than male employees at Roku who were engaged in work that required equal skill, effort, and responsibility to hers and that was performed under similar working conditions,” in violation of federal equal-pay statutes, said the complaint. Of the 36 employees department head Abhijit Pol hired since January 2016, all but six were of Indian/South Asian descent, it said. Of the four employees Pol fired during that time, three were non-Indian/South Asian, including Beckett, it said. Beckett filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which “cross-filed” her complaint with California authorities, it said. She received notices from both of the right to sue alleging violations of federal and state fair-employment statutes, it said. A Roku spokesperson declined comment Tuesday.

Expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Apple in a case deciding whether customers, not just app developers, can sue for antitrust damages (see 1811050033), Cowen analyst Paul Gallant said Tuesday. The court under Chief Justice John Roberts historically has been pro-business, and the solicitor general sided with Apple in this case, Gallant said. Oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. Monday.

Substantive issues in Protect Democracy Project's lawsuit over Freedom of Information Act requests for White House/agency communications on Disney's proposed buy of Fox "have been resolved" except for attorneys' fees, DOJ said in a docket 18-cv-00506-APM joint status report (in Pacer) posted Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. PDP is pursuing similar litigation for FOIA requests it sent to Justice seeking all White House/DOJ communications about AT&T/Time Warner.

Tyler Barriss, 25, pled guilty to phoning in "hoax bomb threats" to the FCC and FBI in Washington and dozens of other crimes, said the U.S. Attorney's Office for Kansas Tuesday. A Dec. 14 threat disrupted the FCC meeting where commissioners adopted 3-2 a net neutrality reversal order (see 1712140039). Chairman Ajit Pai said he's "deeply grateful" to law enforcement and FCC security officials. Barriss, of Los Angeles, faces 20 years or more in prison, said U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister, with sentencing set for Jan. 30: In a Dec. 28 "swatting" incident in Wichita, Kansas, Barriss admitted making a hoax call that resulted in police surrounding a house where they believed there was a hostage situation, shooting dead an innocent man.

With pirate service TVizion never responding to a Dish Network/NagraStar lawsuit filed earlier this year, the two seek a court order giving them $5.96 million in statutory damages plus permanent injunctive relief. In a docket 18-cv-00727 motion (in Pacer) for default judgment filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Dish/NagraStar said the statutory damages were based on a $1,000 fine for each subscription TVizion sold. They said TVizion's domains should be impounded. TVizion messaged Wednesday that it "no longer exists."