1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Federal Circuit Drops Bombshells on CDA Statute of Limitations and CAS "Materiality" Test

Federal Circuit Drops Bombshells on CDA Statute of Limitations and CAS "Materiality" Test

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.11.14

In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit upended the prevailing case law on the CDA statute of limitations by holding that the six-year SOL for filing CDA claims is "not jurisdictional" and "need not be addressed before deciding the merits." In denying the merits of the government's $80 million CAS 418 claim, the Federal Circuit also held that the cost of Sikorsky's management and supervision was "not a material amount of the total pool costs" because managers/supervisors comprised only 7 to 14 percent of the pertinent workforce, clarifying that materiality requires "a significant amount."


Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26

The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs....