Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC and LOLCOW, LLC, d/b/a KIWI FARMS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, a/k/a OFCOM
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 1/19/2026. (tj)
—
31 Gru 2025
—
31 Gru 2025
MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or before January 19, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/1/2026. (lcrc2)
To enforce any of their judgements, they would have to go to US Federal Court and waive their Congress given immunities. This is the thing they repeatedly claimed in this litigation they don't want to do, and is their primary argument as to why 4chan and Kiwi Farms should not be able to sue them.
To enforce any of their judgements, they would have to go to US Federal Court and waive their Congress given immunities. This is the thing they repeatedly claimed in this litigation they don't want to do, and is their primary argument as to why 4chan and Kiwi Farms should not be able to sue them.
Yeah. This works all the time. Twitter complies with monetary and censorship demands, Google complies with both, Facebook, etc. You ever wonder why you're getting cookie notices? That's because EU will threaten any website that doesn't have them as in violation of EU law, and almost all of them will comply. This applies to other industries as well.
To enforce any of their judgements, they would have to go to US Federal Court and waive their Congress given immunities. This is the thing they repeatedly claimed in this litigation they don't want to do, and is their primary argument as to why 4chan and Kiwi Farms should not be able to sue them.
They might be desperate enough for a win at this point to do it. The online safety act has collected very little all things considered once people realized they didn't have to pay.
At the current moment yes. They always never had any power. Unless the government through some arbitrary treaty, or the Us courts. The Sapphire the Supreme Court has held that "[a] foreign sovereign, as well as any other foreign person, who has a demand of a civil nature against any person here, may prosecute it in our courts
Yeah. This works all the time. Twitter complies with monetary and censorship demands, Google complies with both, Facebook, etc. You ever wonder why you're getting cookie notices? That's because EU will threaten any website that doesn't have them as in violation of EU law, and almost all of them will comply. This applies to other industries as well.
Yeah. This works all the time. Twitter complies with monetary and censorship demands, Google complies with both, Facebook, etc. You ever wonder why you're getting cookie notices? That's because EU will threaten any website that doesn't have them as in violation of EU law, and almost all of them will comply. This applies to other industries as well.
Yeah. This works all the time. Twitter complies with monetary and censorship demands, Google complies with both, Facebook, etc. You ever wonder why you're getting cookie notices? That's because EU will threaten any website that doesn't have them as in violation of EU law, and almost all of them will comply. This applies to other industries as well.
For me it does lead to the question of: how much of the company's budget, like Facebook or the other members of that big tech group, goes to paying off legal issues like that. Often you hear about all sorts of companies like that doling out multimillion dollar settlements or fines, and then proceeding along as they always have.
"we will maybe do something tee hee"
This is why I have a collection under my sink, the fact anyone anywhere ever took this seriously is very silly indeed.
