Home > Articles

Top Cyberlaw Developments of 2007

2007 didn't see many Cyberlaw bombshells, but there were still some noteworthy legal developments. Eric Goldman looked back through the year's developments and came up with his list of the top 10 Cyberlaw developments of 2007.
Like this article? We recommend

2007 was a relatively quiet Cyberlaw year. We didn't have any sweeping Congressional reforms or US Supreme Court decisions, and many potentially interesting Cyberlaw situations settled (such as AFP v. Google), are pending (such as the Google Book Search cases or some of the lawsuits discussed below) or simply fizzled out (such as Congressional anti-spyware (1, 2) or Net Neutrality regulation; plus my choices for the top 2 Cyberlaw developments below). These lack-of-developments once again left the Ninth Circuit as a leading source of new Cyberlaw developments, but that's hardly good news. The Ninth Circuit Cyberlaw jurisprudence continues to show radical differences between the Ninth Circuit judges, leading to significant inconsistencies in Ninth Circuit jurisprudence depending on which judges are empaneled.

Before we get to the top 10, some runners-up:

My vote for the top 10 Cyberlaw developments of 2007:

#10: Internet Tax Moratorium Extended. The moratorium on taxing Internet conduct is one of the flagship examples of 1990s cyberspace exceptionalism (47 USC 230 is the other main one). In the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007, Congress has extended the moratorium another 7 years. It's too bad Congress couldn't make the ban permanent, but this development nevertheless holds the tax jackals at bay a little longer. Not that they won't try backdoor methods to tax the Internet (see the #1 entry below).

#9: Ninth Circuit Rejects Automatically Updating User Agreements Without Notice. You've seen them before--online user agreements that say "We can amend this agreement by posting a new version to the website. Check back often." The meme is so prevalent that it's hard to believe it's not legally effective. But according to the Ninth Circuit, it isn't. It will be interesting to see if websites stop using the language or if the meme is so deeply ingrained that websites will keep using this language even if it's not legally effective.

#8: Everyone Sues YouTube. YouTube's successes brought out plaintiffs in droves. The most interesting of these is Viacom, a major content owner that has plenty of reasons to strike a deal with YouTube rather than force the issue in court. From a legal standpoint, these lawsuits squarely implicate the statutory safe harbors enacted as part of the DMCA and codified in 17 USC 512(c). Remarkably, 9 years after the DMCA's passage, (A) cases are raising rather pedestrian statutory construction issues about 512(c), and (B) more importantly, we still have no idea how they will be resolved by the courts!

#7: Google Keyword Lawsuits Substitute "Airlines" for "Blinds." Courts continued to fracture on the trademark implications of keyword advertising, which led to a number of interesting cases in 2007. I'll focus on perhaps the biggest surprise of 2007, which occurred when American Blinds stunningly dropped its 4 year old lawsuit against Google without receiving any meaningful concessions from Google. Also stunning was American Airlines' decision to sue Google on the same theories, despite the obvious expense of litigating a bet-your-business issue with Google, and despite having some very weak trademarks. For now, the trademark consequences of keyword advertising appear to be far from resolved.

#6: Facebook and ConnectU Brawls Continue. The Facebook litigation is a textbook example of how money, ego and vindictiveness can lead to messy litigation. No one wins in these situations except the lawyers, who get to be the arms dealers to combatants locked in a death struggle. The story starts in 2003 when the ConnectU team retained Zuckerberg to help code a social networking site. Zuckerberg in turn launched Facebook a few weeks after his involvement with ConnectU. ConnectU alleges that Zuckerberg stole ConnectU's IP to launch Facebook, a lawsuit that's been going on for almost 4 years.

Meanwhile, Facebook has been a hit in the marketplace and ConnectU has not. To catch up, ConnectU sent some robots to Facebook to collect some info about Facebook users. Facebook has sued ConnectU in a lawsuit that's been going on a couple years as well.

Remarkably, neither lawsuit has really reached an important substantive opinion yet, representing a lot of time and money spent by both parties to make surprisingly little progress. Perhaps everyone will find harmony in 2008.

#5: KinderStart Emphatically Loses Lawsuit Over Google Rankings. KinderStart sued Google for downgrading KinderStart's PageRank. This was a silly lawsuit from the start, but the denouement was a spectacular victory for Google. Not only did the judge uphold Google's independence in determining its rankings, but it slammed KinderStart's lawyer with sanctions for making unsupportable allegations against Google. This outcome has really cooled the enthusiasm of plaintiffs hoping that judges will substitute their relevancy judgments for Google's.

#4: Oracle Uses Cyberlaw to Kill SAP Subsidiary. The giants of the enterprise software industry beat up on each other on multiple battlefronts, so in that respect this development was a small part of a much larger phenomenon. But still, it was interesting to see Cyberlaw emerge as a key tool for Oracle to attack archrival SAP. SAP acquired a subsidiary called TomorrowNow that offered cut-rate maintenance for Oracle software. Not only did this cut into the margins of Oracle's cash cow, but it provided Oracle's customers with an easy migration path to switch to SAP products. The problem is that TomorrowNow developed this great business proposition by grabbing copyrighted material from Oracle's password-protected support databases. This is a big no-no that will lead to a favorable Oracle outcome and new jobs for TomorrowNow execs (if they are able to avoid jail).

#3: Ninth Circuit Struggles with Perfect 10 Cases. Every now and then, a plaintiff goes off the deep end and sues the world for perceived transgressions. Perfect 10 is in the middle of such a catharsis, having sued the entire Internet infrastructure (but, conspicuously, not individual users) for the republication of its copyrighted photos. These lawsuits led to a troika of Ninth Circuit opinions that completely befuddled the Ninth Circuit, creating a bad brew of Cyberlaw mush that the Ninth Circuit will be struggling with for years.

In the first, the ccBill case, the Ninth Circuit read 47 USC 230 to preempt state IP laws. This was such a surprising result that the Ninth Circuit issued an amendment to reiterate that it meant what it appeared to have said.

The second was the Amazon and Google case, where the Ninth Circuit held that Google wasn't directly liable for linking to or framing infringing content but it could be secondarily liable. The Ninth Circuit had to do a 180 on this opinion with respect to who bore the burden of establishing fair use in a preliminary injunction request.

Finally, the court resolved the Visa case, which completely exonerated Visa over a stinging dissent by Judge Kozinski claiming that this ruling was inconsistent with the standards in the Amazon/Google case. He had a point.

Collectively, the three opinions leave the unmistakable impression that the Ninth Circuit is making up Cyberlaw as it goes along from case to case. As a result, we're left with some very murky case law and effectively zero predictability about what the Ninth Circuit will do in the next Cyberlaw case.

#2: Ninth Circuit Splinters 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence. In May, the Ninth Circuit screwed up in the Fair Housing Councils v. Roommates.com case. In a badly fractured set of opinions, the initial three-judge panel drafted a set of incoherent exceptions to 47 USC 230 law that represented a major incursion into the otherwise uniform immunity. This initial ruling could have opened the floodgates of plaintiffs seeking to exploit its impenetrabilities. Wisely, the Ninth Circuit granted an en banc hearing in the case, wiping away the original set of opinions. We're waiting to see if they reach a better substantive result when the en banc opinions are issued.

And the winner as my top Cyberlaw development of 2007 is...

#1: The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy: Utah Tries to Tax Keyword Advertising Into Oblivion. The state of Utah has an unrivaled record of Internet legislative incompetence, but they topped themselves in March when they passed the Utah Trademark Protection Act. This law set up a registry for trademarks and other identifiers and banned third party use of these registered marks as triggers for keyword advertising.

It's been hard to pin down exactly why Utah passed this law. Once the publicity spotlight shone on this law, everyone in Utah involved with the law started finger-pointing, making it difficult to do after-the-fact forensics. As far as I've been able to deduce, Utah hoped to get a little slice of the massive online advertising industry for itself--Utah could charge trademark owners to register their marks and charge online advertisers to check the registry, allowing Utah to tax online advertising even if none of the players (the advertisers, the keyword vendor and the trademark owner) had any relationship with Utah.

We may never know if this law would survive a legal challenge because Utah legislators started backpedaling almost immediately since their actions were publicized. In the end, this particular law is almost certain to fade away quietly--good news, to be sure, but a temporary win at best. The same drivers--greedy and incompetent legislators eyeing a big fat chunk of economic activity--almost ensure that other legislators will try again, making another battle inevitable unless preemptive federal legislation is passed.

For those wanting more perspective, here are my Top Cyberlaw Developments from 2006.

InformIT Promotional Mailings & Special Offers

I would like to receive exclusive offers and hear about products from InformIT and its family of brands. I can unsubscribe at any time.


Pearson Education, Inc., 221 River Street, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, (Pearson) presents this site to provide information about products and services that can be purchased through this site.

This privacy notice provides an overview of our commitment to privacy and describes how we collect, protect, use and share personal information collected through this site. Please note that other Pearson websites and online products and services have their own separate privacy policies.

Collection and Use of Information

To conduct business and deliver products and services, Pearson collects and uses personal information in several ways in connection with this site, including:

Questions and Inquiries

For inquiries and questions, we collect the inquiry or question, together with name, contact details (email address, phone number and mailing address) and any other additional information voluntarily submitted to us through a Contact Us form or an email. We use this information to address the inquiry and respond to the question.

Online Store

For orders and purchases placed through our online store on this site, we collect order details, name, institution name and address (if applicable), email address, phone number, shipping and billing addresses, credit/debit card information, shipping options and any instructions. We use this information to complete transactions, fulfill orders, communicate with individuals placing orders or visiting the online store, and for related purposes.


Pearson may offer opportunities to provide feedback or participate in surveys, including surveys evaluating Pearson products, services or sites. Participation is voluntary. Pearson collects information requested in the survey questions and uses the information to evaluate, support, maintain and improve products, services or sites, develop new products and services, conduct educational research and for other purposes specified in the survey.

Contests and Drawings

Occasionally, we may sponsor a contest or drawing. Participation is optional. Pearson collects name, contact information and other information specified on the entry form for the contest or drawing to conduct the contest or drawing. Pearson may collect additional personal information from the winners of a contest or drawing in order to award the prize and for tax reporting purposes, as required by law.


If you have elected to receive email newsletters or promotional mailings and special offers but want to unsubscribe, simply email information@informit.com.

Service Announcements

On rare occasions it is necessary to send out a strictly service related announcement. For instance, if our service is temporarily suspended for maintenance we might send users an email. Generally, users may not opt-out of these communications, though they can deactivate their account information. However, these communications are not promotional in nature.

Customer Service

We communicate with users on a regular basis to provide requested services and in regard to issues relating to their account we reply via email or phone in accordance with the users' wishes when a user submits their information through our Contact Us form.

Other Collection and Use of Information

Application and System Logs

Pearson automatically collects log data to help ensure the delivery, availability and security of this site. Log data may include technical information about how a user or visitor connected to this site, such as browser type, type of computer/device, operating system, internet service provider and IP address. We use this information for support purposes and to monitor the health of the site, identify problems, improve service, detect unauthorized access and fraudulent activity, prevent and respond to security incidents and appropriately scale computing resources.

Web Analytics

Pearson may use third party web trend analytical services, including Google Analytics, to collect visitor information, such as IP addresses, browser types, referring pages, pages visited and time spent on a particular site. While these analytical services collect and report information on an anonymous basis, they may use cookies to gather web trend information. The information gathered may enable Pearson (but not the third party web trend services) to link information with application and system log data. Pearson uses this information for system administration and to identify problems, improve service, detect unauthorized access and fraudulent activity, prevent and respond to security incidents, appropriately scale computing resources and otherwise support and deliver this site and its services.

Cookies and Related Technologies

This site uses cookies and similar technologies to personalize content, measure traffic patterns, control security, track use and access of information on this site, and provide interest-based messages and advertising. Users can manage and block the use of cookies through their browser. Disabling or blocking certain cookies may limit the functionality of this site.

Do Not Track

This site currently does not respond to Do Not Track signals.


Pearson uses appropriate physical, administrative and technical security measures to protect personal information from unauthorized access, use and disclosure.


This site is not directed to children under the age of 13.


Pearson may send or direct marketing communications to users, provided that

  • Pearson will not use personal information collected or processed as a K-12 school service provider for the purpose of directed or targeted advertising.
  • Such marketing is consistent with applicable law and Pearson's legal obligations.
  • Pearson will not knowingly direct or send marketing communications to an individual who has expressed a preference not to receive marketing.
  • Where required by applicable law, express or implied consent to marketing exists and has not been withdrawn.

Pearson may provide personal information to a third party service provider on a restricted basis to provide marketing solely on behalf of Pearson or an affiliate or customer for whom Pearson is a service provider. Marketing preferences may be changed at any time.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user's personally identifiable information changes (such as your postal address or email address), we provide a way to correct or update that user's personal data provided to us. This can be done on the Account page. If a user no longer desires our service and desires to delete his or her account, please contact us at customer-service@informit.com and we will process the deletion of a user's account.


Users can always make an informed choice as to whether they should proceed with certain services offered by InformIT. If you choose to remove yourself from our mailing list(s) simply visit the following page and uncheck any communication you no longer want to receive: www.informit.com/u.aspx.

Sale of Personal Information

Pearson does not rent or sell personal information in exchange for any payment of money.

While Pearson does not sell personal information, as defined in Nevada law, Nevada residents may email a request for no sale of their personal information to NevadaDesignatedRequest@pearson.com.

Supplemental Privacy Statement for California Residents

California residents should read our Supplemental privacy statement for California residents in conjunction with this Privacy Notice. The Supplemental privacy statement for California residents explains Pearson's commitment to comply with California law and applies to personal information of California residents collected in connection with this site and the Services.

Sharing and Disclosure

Pearson may disclose personal information, as follows:

  • As required by law.
  • With the consent of the individual (or their parent, if the individual is a minor)
  • In response to a subpoena, court order or legal process, to the extent permitted or required by law
  • To protect the security and safety of individuals, data, assets and systems, consistent with applicable law
  • In connection the sale, joint venture or other transfer of some or all of its company or assets, subject to the provisions of this Privacy Notice
  • To investigate or address actual or suspected fraud or other illegal activities
  • To exercise its legal rights, including enforcement of the Terms of Use for this site or another contract
  • To affiliated Pearson companies and other companies and organizations who perform work for Pearson and are obligated to protect the privacy of personal information consistent with this Privacy Notice
  • To a school, organization, company or government agency, where Pearson collects or processes the personal information in a school setting or on behalf of such organization, company or government agency.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that we are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of each and every web site that collects Personal Information. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this web site.

Requests and Contact

Please contact us about this Privacy Notice or if you have any requests or questions relating to the privacy of your personal information.

Changes to this Privacy Notice

We may revise this Privacy Notice through an updated posting. We will identify the effective date of the revision in the posting. Often, updates are made to provide greater clarity or to comply with changes in regulatory requirements. If the updates involve material changes to the collection, protection, use or disclosure of Personal Information, Pearson will provide notice of the change through a conspicuous notice on this site or other appropriate way. Continued use of the site after the effective date of a posted revision evidences acceptance. Please contact us if you have questions or concerns about the Privacy Notice or any objection to any revisions.

Last Update: November 17, 2020