Intel won a reprieve from the European Court of Justice, which sided with the company's appeal against a lower court ruling that upheld a 1.06 billion euro ($1.26 billion) European Commission fine (see 0912170127). The ECJ said in a Wednesday news release it's sending the case back to the General Court to re-examine Intel's arguments whether its rebates to computer makers and a retailer restricted competition. "While this case concerns events that happened more than a decade ago, we have always believed that our actions were lawful and did not harm competition," said Intel General Counsel Steven Rodgers in a statement. In 2009, the EC alleged Intel "abused" its market dominance for x86 CPUs from 2002 to 2007, with a 70 percent market share that made it difficult for competitors like Advanced Micro Devices to enter, said the release. Regulators alleged that Intel gave rebates to Dell, Lenovo, HP and NEC as long as they bought from the chipmaker "all, or almost all, of their x86 CPUs," and also made payments to Germany-based microelectronics retailer Media-Saturn-Holding to exclusively sell computers with the x86 CPUs. The EC said Intel's strategy "induced the loyalty" of those companies, significantly reducing competition and consumer choice, and imposed the penalty, noted the ECJ. Intel appealed the EC decision but the General Court dismissed that action in 2014. Intel appealed to ECJ. The court said the lower court failed to examine "errors allegedly committed" by regulators on an "as efficient competitor" test, which Intel raised. ECJ said the lower court failed to analyze "whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition." The high court rejected Intel's argument that the EC lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Two Verizon cellular customers who filed a proposed putative class-action lawsuit against Turn for allegedly using "zombie cookies" to collect their personal data to deliver ads won a petition to have their case reheard when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court ruling that tossed out the suit and compelled arbitration with the company. "We are pleased with the Ninth Circuit's decision and are looking forward to litigating these claims," said Lieff Cabraser partner Nimish Desai, who represent plaintiffs William Cintron and Anthony Henson. Ninth Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Richard Tallman and District of Arizona Judge Roslyn Silver issued the per curiam opinion (in Pacer) Tuesday that said the District Court for the Northern District of California "committed clear error by applying New York’s equitable estoppel doctrine, rather than California’s, and by failing to apply California law correctly." It was one of three of five factors from the 1977 case, Bauman v. U.S. District Court, that the panel said weighed in favor of granting the petition. According to the opinion, Verizon granted Turn, described as a "middle man," a license to target ads to subscribers in exchange for a cut of the revenue. Turn attached tracking cookies to Verizon subscribers' "Unique Identifier Headers" to collect data to its servers, but the carrier's customers "were allegedly unable to detect, delete, or block these 'zombie' cookies attached to the UIDHs," said the opinion. Plaintiffs filed the class action on behalf of Verizon subscribers in New York, saying Turn engaged in deceptive practices and interfered with "the use and enjoyment" of their devices, said the opinion. Turn sought to dismiss claims and force arbitration in the customer agreement between customers and Verizon for any disputes, but the panel said Turn isn't a signatory to the agreement and the district court didn't do a "choice-of-law analysis" when it granted Turn's motion to compel arbitration. Neither digital marketing company Amobee, which said in April it's acquiring Turn, nor Turn's attorneys commented. Verizon declined to comment.

A Dish Network subsidiary and the insurance company and contractor it's suing over attorney fees and costs from separate litigation agreed to settle, said a docket 17-344 stipulated motion (in Pacer) Friday in U.S. District Court in Denver. Dish Network California Service sued Zoom Communications and insurer Evanston Insurance in February, seeking indemnification from all attorney fees and costs it incurred after it was sued in 2010 by the parents of a California minor struck and killed in 2009 by a Zoom employee doing Dish installation or repair work. The Dish subsidiary sought $600,000, plus interest and fees. Now, both sides said they reached preliminary agreements to settle and are finalizing terms.

Qualcomm will appeal a Seoul High Court decision denying the company’s application to stay a remedial order issued against it by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, it said in a Tuesday announcement. The court denied Qualcomm's stay application, saying its business won't suffer irreparable harm if the KFTC's order remains in effect, said the company. The order reviewed by the court doesn't invalidate existing license agreements, doesn't prohibit Qualcomm from entering into licenses for its standard essential patents and other patents at the device level, and doesn't limit the royalties Qualcomm can seek or collect for SEPs under its current or future licenses "as long the license agreements are consistent with Qualcomm's fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms commitments," it said. The order requires Qualcomm to engage in "good-faith negotiations with chip companies seeking a license and to negotiate possible amendments with current licensees upon request," it said. The decision doesn't affect Qualcomm's appeal of the underlying KFTC decision, which the Seoul High Court will consider later, said the company. "Qualcomm continues to believe that the KFTC's ruling is not supported by the facts and law, and was the product of a hearing and investigation that denied Qualcomm fundamental due process rights. Qualcomm also intends to preserve and pursue its arguments that the KFTC's underlying decision exceeds its authority and principles of international law by inappropriately seeking to regulate intellectual property rights arising under the laws of other nations, including the United States."

Operators of an alleged telemarketing scheme will be banned from selling business opportunities and government grant products and services in a settlement with the FTC, said the agency in a Thursday news release. Commissioners voted 2-0 approved final orders that were entered by the District Court for the District of Arizona against defendants Stephanie Bateluna, Carl Morris Jr., Stacey Vela and Paramount Business Services. Each order imposes a judgment of more than $11.8 million but will be partially suspended for Bateluna, Vela and Paramount after they surrender assets. The FTC complaint last year (see 1610280023) said telemarketers "falsely" promised consumers creation of a retail website linked to Amazon that would generate income for consumers. Operators also falsely promised guaranteed government grants worth at least tens of thousands of dollars if consumers paid them thousands of dollars. Contact information for the defendants couldn't be found.

The proposed final judgment on DirecTV's coordinating with Charter Communications, Cox Communications and AT&T in those MVPDs' negotiations with SportsNet LA is effective and an appropriate remedy for the antitrust claims, the DOJ said in a comment published Friday in the Federal Register. DOJ also said it will ask U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for entry of the proposed final judgment. It said it received one comment on the proposed final judgment by the June 13 deadline, with the commenter urging a separate lawsuit against Time Warner Cable, owner of the Dodgers Channel and now part of Charter. DOJ said the comment sought relief beyond that included in the proposed final judgment, such as requiring DirecTV carry Dodgers games, but the agency said no additional relief is needed to prevent DirecTV from information-sharing agreements like the one alleged in the 2016 antitrust suit (see 1611040035). Under the proposed settlement, AT&T won't directly or indirectly communicate or seek competitively sensitive information from any MVPD, except for a lawful purpose (see 1703240005). DirecTV's now-owner AT&T didn't comment.

Oral argument in FTC's fight against AT&T Mobility at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled for Sept. 19 at 1 p.m. in San Francisco, the court said. The 9th Circuit agreed in May to an en banc review after the commission appealed a panel ruling that jettisoned its case against AT&T, alleged to have inadequately informed customers of its data-throttling program (see 1705090068). The ruling has larger implications regarding FTC authority to oversee ISP privacy (see 1608290032).

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's 2016 preliminary injunction against online streaming service VidAngel (see 1702100010). In an opinion (in Pacer) Thursday, the 9th Circuit dismissed VidAngel's interpretation of the 2005 Family Movie Act, saying its process of decryption and copying before filtering violates intellectual property rights protection. VidAngel's read also "would create a giant loophole" in copyright law by sanctioning infringement if there was some filtering and a copy of the work was legally purchased at some point, it said. The 9th Circuit said VidAngel's buys of DVDs it then ripped and streamed doesn't excuse its infringement and it rejected the company's argument it's authorized to decrypt the technical protection measures to view the discs' content. The court said the Digital Millennium Copyright Act exempts from circumvention liability only those whom a copyright owner authorizes to circumvent an access control measure. Deciding were Judges Carlos Bea, Andrew Hurwitz and Leslie Kobayashi, with Hurwitz penning the opinion. VidAngel said in a statement it's disappointed and "reviewing our strategy for moving forward." It said the 9th Circuit ruling "has absolutely no impact on VidAngel's current service, we remain open for business. On the legal front, we are just getting started. We will fight for a family's right to filter on modern technology all the way." U.S. District Court in Los Angeles earlier this month denied VidAngel's counterclaims against plaintiffs Disney, Lucasfilm, Fox and Warner Bros. (see 1708110038).

Regardless of whether it was "necessary, accurate or well-executed," a February 2016 work by YouTube video makers Ethan and Hila Klein was unquestionably criticism and commentary of a work by fellow YouTuber Matt Hosseinzadeh, said U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of Manhattan in an order (in Pacer) Wednesday. It dismissed Hosseinzadeh's motion for summary judgment in his copyright infringement and defamation lawsuit, and granted the Kleins' similar motion. Counsel for Hosseinzadeh didn't comment Thursday.

A three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a district court decision to approve an $8.5 million cy pres-only settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Google, which plaintiffs alleged violated their privacy by revealing their personal search engine terms. Attorney Ted Frank, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEP), representing several objectors to the settlement, said he plans to appeal the decision. Judge Margaret McKeown, who wrote the Tuesday opinion (in Pacer) and was joined by Judges Jay Bybee and, in part, Clifford Wallace, said the District Court for the Northern District of California "did not abuse its discretion" in approving the settlement, to which Google agreed in exchange for a release of the claims of about 129 million people who used the search engine from 2006 to 2014. Several plaintiffs seeking class-action status sued Google in 2010, saying the company operated its search engine in a manner that violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and state law by disclosing users' personal information such as search terms to third parties, said a 2015 brief filed by plaintiffs who objected to the settlement. Eventually, the parties settled and the district court certified the class for settlement with final approval in 2015. Of the funds, $3.2 million were earmarked for attorneys' fees and $5.3 million for cy pres recipients: AARP; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; Carnegie Mellon University; the Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law Center for Information, Society and Policy; the Stanford Center for Internet and Society; and the World Privacy Forum. They agreed to use the funds for public awareness and education and/or R&D on internet privacy. But plaintiffs against the settlement, led by CEP's Frank, said the $8.5 million was enough to fund a claims process or lottery distribution to class members and "improperly favored the third-party charities," said the 2015 brief. It also said the cy pres recipients were "tainted" since they had pre-existing relationships with class counsel and Google, which has donated money to some of those organizations. McKeown in her decision said the district court "appropriately" found the cy pres recipients could address the SCA objectives and advance interests of the plaintiffs and three organizations that disclosed past funding by Google, with some even challenging company policies in the past. She also rejected any problem with any link between the cy pres recipients and class counsel. Partially dissenting, Wallace took issue that nearly half the settlement was being donated to the alma maters of class counsel. Frank said he will "petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on or before September 5." A Google spokesperson said it was pleased with the decision.