3 ms·
> whether takedown injunctions can actually be made legally binding on Internet platforms, rather than just being something that platforms choose whether to fol
by defen 10y ago
> whether takedown injunctions can actually be made legally binding on Internet platforms, rather than just being something that platforms choose whether to follow
If they're not legally binding, what incentive do Internet platforms have to follow them? It seems like it adds work and overhead; so what strategic or economic or other goals would following non-legally-binding injunctions further?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> If they're not legally binding, what incentive do Internet platforms have to follow them? Third-party injunctions of the type at issue here (third-party in that the internet platform is not a party to the case) are usually followed by platforms to remove or deindex content because the existence of the third-party injunction provides more basis than a simple request to suspect that a direct lawsuit against the search company would also result in a direct injunction (which would be obligatory, in any case.)
- praxulus 10y agoFor Yelp, it's damaging to their core business to have false reviews, and depending on businesses alone to report false reviews is obviously insufficient.