Media Law
September 15, 2025
Dominion Voting Systems, a North American company that specializes in producing election software, filed a defamation lawsuit in 2021. They sought $1.6 billion in damages after accusing Newsmax Media, a far-right American media organization, of knowingly broadcasting false conspiracy theories after the 2020 United States presidential election. Newsmax repeatedly publicly accused Dominion of manipulating votes to create influence over the company. Additionally, Newsmax accused Dominion of working with foreign countries such as Venezuela and China to win the election, including claims that the machines were rigged on orders from deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. Furthermore, on June 3, 2022, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the United States, the branch of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that protects against cyber and infrastructure attacks, released a notice concerning various uncertainties.
August 15, 2025
Media Matters for America et al. v. X Corp. et al. (2025) is the latest chapter in an escalating legal battle between the progressive media watchdog organization Media Matters and Elon Musk's social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). Filed on March 10, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Media Matters' lawsuit accuses X of engaging in abusive and retaliatory litigation tactics aimed at silencing reporting that highlights hate speech, misinformation, and extremist content allegedly amplified by the platform's advertising algorithms. As a media watchdog, Media Matters monitors the actions of public figures, institutions, and corporations to expose wrongdoing or hold them accountable. Therefore, Media Matters' complaint centers on their November 2023 investigation, which reported that advertisements from major companies, including Apple, IBM, and Oracle, were appearing alongside white supremacist and antisemitic content on X.
July 15, 2025
In Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Uthmeier (2024), the CCIA and NetChoice contest Florida's House Bill 3, a law that bans social media access for children under the age of 14 and requires parental consent for 14 to 15 year olds. The stated goal of HB 3 is to encourage child safety across internet platforms by restricting access to social media. The law also permits parents to request that their child's account be deleted in accordance with age restrictions and imposes civil fines of up to $50,000 per violation on social media platforms and commercial entities. The plaintiff, the CCIA, is challenging states they perceive restrict users' first amendment rights post HB 3. The First Amendment protects the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Moreover, social media bans such as HB 3 often restrict people or groups to prevent them from accessing social media platforms. This can be due to age restrictions, criminal activities, parental accessibilities, or censorship. State legislators typically introduce these laws, sponsor the bill, and guide it through the legislative process. The process also varies from the state and federal levels: on the state side, the governor must sign the bill into law and on the federal side, the bill must be enacted through both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
June 15, 2025
On November 15th, former professional boxer "Iron" Mike Tyson and YouTuber Jake Paul fought in the very first live streamed boxing match in Netflix history. With about one out of every five Netflix subscribers tuning in to the event, this match aimed to attract a large number of younger viewers from Paul's social media following and a more traditional boxing crowd from former heavy-weight champion Tyson. This novelty match was fueled by the spectacle of two celebrities with controversial pasts fighting over a seemingly petty rivalry as Netflix marketed the match as an unmissable event at no extra cost to subscribers. However, during the match, thousands of people reported issues like buffering, freezing, and not being able to watch at all. Many subscribers also reported receiving no refund or technical support, which led to widespread frustration and a social media backlash against Netflix.
May 15, 2025
House v. NCAA (2024) is a lawsuit begun by Arizona State swimmer Grant House who challenged the NCAA over their revenue policies and restrictions on athletic compensation as anticompetitive behavior. This case is a federal class-action antitrust lawsuit meaning that the legal action was filed in federal court (in this case the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California). The progression to a lawsuit typically begins with the filing of a formal complaint, where the plaintiff, or person who filed a complaint, alleges specific violations of the law. In this case, House and fellow collegiate athletes claimed that the NCAA's regulations constituted a restraint of trade in violation of antitrust statutes. The court subsequently recognized the matter as a class action allowing a group of similarly impacted individuals known as a class to collectively sue the NCAA.
April 15, 2025
Contractual disputes in the entertainment industry are nothing new. From battles over creative control to allegations of misconduct, actors and studios have often found themselves at odds over the terms of their working relationships. One of the most famous early examples is the 1944 case De Havilland v. Warner Bros., where actress Olivia de Havilland successfully challenged Warner Bros' practice of tacking suspension periods onto her contract. The California Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, effectively limiting studios' ability to control performers through long-term personal service contracts. This case helped lay the groundwork for modern disputes around actor autonomy and workplace fairness.
March 15, 2025
On Jan. 15, 2025, Rapper Aubrey "Drake" Graham filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) for the release of Kendrick Lamar's song "Not Like Us." The lawsuit targets the music studio UMG for releasing music that Drake claims contains false and threatening allegations such as labeling Drake as a pervert and pedophile. This case is a continuation of Drake and Lamar's feud, for before the lawsuit, Drake filed several motions against UMG for Lamar's song. On Nov. 25, 2024, Drake filed a motion against UMG and Spotify accusing them of using bots to artificially boost streams for "Not Like Us." The following day, Drake filed a second motion for defamation, arguing that UMG could have blocked the "Not Like Us" release but chose not to, harming Drake's reputation.