MENU

Entertainment Law

The Texting Case

Short video featuring Richard A. Samp discussing Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez
Richard A. Samp October 09, 2015

Advertising agency Campbell-Ewald sent recruitment texts to Jose Gomez on behalf of the US Navy, violating a little-known law. When Mr. Gomez sued, Campbell-Ewald offered to pay the statutory damages in full. In this upcoming case, the Supreme Court will consider whether or not Mr. Gomez has Article III standing: is there still a controversy since an offer for complete relief has been made?

Washington Legal Foundation Attorney Chief Counsel Richard A. Samp previews the case being argued October 14. Mr. Samp clarifies that although the Supreme Court will decide whether or not Mr. Gomez has standing to sue, the underlying issue involves the possibility of a Class Action lawsuit against Campbell-Ewald.

Mr. Samp authored the Washington Legal Foundation amicus curiae brief in support of petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 7-29-14 featuring Mark Schultz
Mark F. Schultz July 29, 2014

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo. This case involves the question of whether, under sections 101 and 106 of the Copyright Act, a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program--a privilege normally reserved to the copyright holder--when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that Aereo is not simply an “equipment supplier” and that it performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. The decision of the Second Circuit was reversed.

To discuss the case, we have Mark Schultz, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Southern Illinois University School of Law.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-8-14 featuring Babette Boliek
Babette Boliek May 08, 2014

Babette BoliekOn April 22, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.. This case involves the question of whether, under sections 101 and 106 of the Copyright Act, a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program--a privilege normally reserved to the copyright holder--when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.

To discuss the case, we have Babette Boliek, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Pepperdine University School of Law.

FCC v. Fox - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 07-03-12 featuring Erik Jaffe and Patrick Brennan
Erik S. Jaffe, Patrick McKinley Brennan July 03, 2012

SCOTUScastOn June 21, 2012 the Supreme Court announced its decision in FCC v. Fox.  The question in this case was whether the standards for indecency that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) applied to broadcasts by Fox and ABC were unconstitutionally vague.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled by a vote of 8-0 that, because the FCC failed to give Fox and ABC prior notice that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity were unacceptable, the FCC’s standards for indecency were too vague.  Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

We have Erik Jaffe, a Washington, D.C. attorney who specializes in appellate litigation, and Patrick Brennan, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor at the Villanova University School of Law, to discuss the case in two separate podcasts.

FCC v. Fox - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 02-01-12 featuring Erik Jaffe and Patrick Brennan
Erik S. Jaffe, Patrick McKinley Brennan January 27, 2012

SCOTUScastOn January 10, 2012 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in FCC v. Fox.  The question in this case is whether the Federal Communications Commission’s standards for indecency are too vague to be constitutional.

To discuss the case we have Erik Jaffe, a Washington, D.C. attorney who specializes in appellate litigation, and Patrick Brennan, who is Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor at the Villanova University School of Law.