Similar State FCA Allegations Yield Mixed Results
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.05
In two California Civil False Claims Act (FCA) cases recently decided by different districts of the California Court of Appeal, California ex rel. Harris v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Jan. 20, 2005) and California ex rel. Bowen v. Bank of America (Jan. 31, 2005), qui tam relators got mixed results on their novel “reverse false claims”allegations that the defendants failed to report and turn over to the State unclaimed property as required by California law. In Harris, applying case law under the federal FCA, the court upheld liability against an escrow title company and reversed summary judgment in favor of its accountants; but in Bowen, the Court, also applying federal case law, upheld the dismissal of the consolidated complaint against several banks on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts that would make the subject property “certain and liquidated,” such that no reverse false claim could arise from the failure to report and turn over the property.
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.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.31.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.31.26
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.28.26
Data Centers in the Crosshairs: The Plaintiffs' Bar Has Begun Filing New Claims Using Old Tricks
