skip to main | skip to sidebar

Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log

False advertising and more

Friday, October 27, 2017

Public disclosure of private facts

Setting FERPA aside, does Taiwan Jones have any claim based on the viral tweet about his failed midterm?  (Skepticism here.)
Posted by Rebecca Tushnet at 3:04 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: privacy

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
View mobile version
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Rebecca Tushnet

Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet

Email subscription

Get new posts by email:
Powered by follow.it

ABA Blawg 100

ABA Blawg 100

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
Comments
Atom
Comments

Subscribe via RSS or LinkedIn

  • Atom
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS 2.0
  • Use If This Than That (recommended but needs setup)

"Bright young [wo]man"/"Yo, who the F is this?"

  • Harvard Law School
  • Mastodon (mostly repost of blog)
  • My website
  • Email me
  • Bluesky

Blog Archive

  • ►  2025 (85)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (12)
    • ►  February (19)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ►  2024 (166)
    • ►  December (10)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (16)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (23)
    • ►  July (17)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (19)
  • ►  2023 (243)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (13)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (19)
    • ►  August (16)
    • ►  July (18)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (32)
    • ►  February (24)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2022 (223)
    • ►  December (30)
    • ►  November (12)
    • ►  October (11)
    • ►  September (12)
    • ►  August (19)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (25)
    • ►  May (8)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (20)
    • ►  February (37)
    • ►  January (15)
  • ►  2021 (260)
    • ►  December (8)
    • ►  November (10)
    • ►  October (41)
    • ►  September (86)
    • ►  August (69)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (12)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2020 (220)
    • ►  December (27)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (32)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (17)
    • ►  May (15)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2019 (289)
    • ►  December (21)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (27)
    • ►  August (37)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (20)
    • ►  May (28)
    • ►  April (39)
    • ►  March (25)
    • ►  February (29)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2018 (225)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (16)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (18)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (27)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ▼  2017 (334)
    • ►  December (18)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ▼  October (21)
      • Consumers can't recover for GM's self-tarnishment
      • Just in time for Halloween, a Reese's question
      • Initial decision in FTC 1-800 case finding that an...
      • Public disclosure of private facts
      • Website copying allegations allow potpourri of claims
      • Likely success & irreparable harm still doesn't ju...
      • 9th Circuit rules failure to recognize labeled ads...
      • 9th Circuit rules inability to trust future repres...
      • When the specifics are misleading: medical test st...
      • Reading list: scientific claims and anti-fraud laws
      • Undisclosed, and disclosed, influence when going t...
      • Consumer's ability to trust future representations...
      • TM use in ad text and on website not confusing whe...
      • Uncontradicted testimony that defendant’s claim la...
      • Suing Doe reviewers under the Lanham Act fails
      • Fantasy gambling is newsworthy, doesn't violate pl...
      • Kate Spade fails to toss outlet lawsuit alleging i...
      • FTC loses motion to dismiss because court doesn't ...
      • Pleading facts indicating that ad claims are likel...
      • "information and belief" isn't enough to allege co...
      • Are Crocs' uniqueness claims a crock?
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (33)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (26)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (36)
    • ►  March (48)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2016 (402)
    • ►  December (30)
    • ►  November (35)
    • ►  October (35)
    • ►  September (32)
    • ►  August (34)
    • ►  July (22)
    • ►  June (39)
    • ►  May (49)
    • ►  April (31)
    • ►  March (33)
    • ►  February (35)
    • ►  January (27)
  • ►  2015 (446)
    • ►  December (26)
    • ►  November (29)
    • ►  October (37)
    • ►  September (37)
    • ►  August (32)
    • ►  July (37)
    • ►  June (38)
    • ►  May (40)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (44)
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (30)
  • ►  2014 (518)
    • ►  December (38)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (29)
    • ►  September (48)
    • ►  August (47)
    • ►  July (38)
    • ►  June (45)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (48)
    • ►  March (60)
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (63)
  • ►  2013 (572)
    • ►  December (46)
    • ►  November (36)
    • ►  October (37)
    • ►  September (48)
    • ►  August (52)
    • ►  July (38)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (56)
    • ►  April (59)
    • ►  March (73)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (50)
  • ►  2012 (598)
    • ►  December (56)
    • ►  November (41)
    • ►  October (48)
    • ►  September (56)
    • ►  August (53)
    • ►  July (62)
    • ►  June (62)
    • ►  May (69)
    • ►  April (45)
    • ►  March (42)
    • ►  February (33)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2011 (430)
    • ►  December (35)
    • ►  November (40)
    • ►  October (39)
    • ►  September (41)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (25)
    • ►  May (36)
    • ►  April (40)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (17)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2010 (312)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (37)
    • ►  October (16)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (28)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (30)
    • ►  May (26)
    • ►  April (35)
    • ►  March (27)
    • ►  February (10)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2009 (392)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (45)
    • ►  October (42)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (43)
    • ►  July (39)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (28)
    • ►  April (37)
    • ►  March (39)
    • ►  February (22)
    • ►  January (27)
  • ►  2008 (359)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (20)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (18)
    • ►  August (33)
    • ►  July (29)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (41)
    • ►  March (49)
    • ►  February (30)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2007 (380)
    • ►  December (22)
    • ►  November (38)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (39)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (29)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (30)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2006 (336)
    • ►  December (32)
    • ►  November (16)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (22)
    • ►  August (45)
    • ►  July (34)
    • ►  June (21)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (11)
    • ►  March (42)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (46)
  • ►  2005 (50)
    • ►  December (13)
    • ►  November (14)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2004 (14)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (9)
    • ►  October (2)
  • ►  2003 (9)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (5)

Labels

  • 1201 (19)
  • 1202 (2)
  • 230 (96)
  • acpa (16)
  • advertising (283)
  • antitrust (49)
  • arbitration (3)
  • art law (36)
  • attribution (28)
  • b (1)
  • blogging (23)
  • california (538)
  • can-spam (1)
  • cfaa (12)
  • cfps (53)
  • class actions (278)
  • cmi (19)
  • comics (37)
  • commercial speech (273)
  • conferences (930)
  • consumer protection (970)
  • content moderation (3)
  • contracts (101)
  • copying (195)
  • copyright (1664)
  • counterfeiting (1)
  • creative commons (12)
  • cultural property (10)
  • cybersquatting (1)
  • damages (161)
  • dastar (197)
  • defamation (203)
  • derivative works (2)
  • design patent (57)
  • dilution (257)
  • disclosures (101)
  • disparagement (32)
  • dmca (203)
  • drm (72)
  • evidence (1)
  • false advertising (3136)
  • false association (13)
  • false designation of origin (7)
  • false endorsement (13)
  • fan fiction (87)
  • fanworks (190)
  • fda (275)
  • fees (35)
  • first amendment (445)
  • ftc (185)
  • g (1)
  • geographic indications (43)
  • go (1)
  • google (89)
  • insurance (72)
  • interviews (5)
  • jobs (2)
  • jurisdiction (5)
  • libraries (18)
  • misappropriation (10)
  • moral rights (18)
  • music (137)
  • my lawsuits (16)
  • my writings (114)
  • net neutrality (5)
  • parody (27)
  • patent (226)
  • patents (136)
  • peer production (27)
  • preclusion (1)
  • preemption (270)
  • presentations (119)
  • privacy (113)
  • procedure (146)
  • property (18)
  • reading list (311)
  • remedies (282)
  • right of publicity (267)
  • secondary liability (178)
  • securities (8)
  • standing (357)
  • surveys (109)
  • teaching (38)
  • tortious interference (116)
  • trade secrets (81)
  • trademark (2068)
  • traditional knowledge (11)
  • unconscionability (5)
  • unfairness (64)
  • warranties (14)

Things I've read

 

Creative Commons/disclaimer

Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights. I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Harvard Law School, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.