Talk:Swift v. Zynga

Untitled
In your article, I do not think it is clear how court looked at the Roommate.com ruling in determining the case. Did the court find any analogy or difference in the facts of the case with the facts in the Roommate.com case? If so, what is the analogy or difference between them? How did the court use the ruling of the Roommate.com case? Brief description of such points will help readers understand how court determined this case. Yuriko_N (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a bridge sentence to make the connection more explicit.Igmcdowell (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the main legal issue considered in this case? Clear statement of legal issue and description about how the court ruled the issue can help readers understand your article more clearly. Yuriko_N (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The most important legal issue was CDA immunity relative to dismissal. I think I covered it adequately in the section on CDA immunity. The court did not rule directly on this issue, they just ruled that there was enough evidence to deny the dismissals. Igmcdowell (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several issues mentioned in the procedural background, however, the descriptions regarding the court’s decision mentioned in the Court's reading of CDA immunity and reaction does not necessarily seem to respond to each issues. It would be better to make it clear how they respond with each other. Yuriko_N (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not intend for there to be a 1:1 correspondence between the procedural background and the section on CDA immunity; the procedural background includes all facts in the (in process) case. The section on CDA immunity is only intended to address that issue, which (as far as I could find) that the rest of the internet found newsworthy. If you've discovered otherwise or have ideas how to make this more explicit please advise.Igmcdowell (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What kind of meanings or relationships do the changes made by Zynga have especially in relation to this case? It would not be appropriate to mention individual’s opinion or evaluation about the facts in Wikipedia article but it can help readers to understand the meanings of the case in this society or online business through reading more description about the influence of this case on the society or the business. Yuriko_N (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add this kind of information without straying into the realm of opinion or speculation. It seems useful to know how Zynga reacted to the case (removing, then reinstating the ads), but I couldn't say for sure that these ads were removed/reinstated directly because of this lawsuit.Igmcdowell (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Updates needed
This article needs to be updated since the court's denial of the motion to dismiss in 2010. I will try to work on some of these developments, but I am laying them out here for anyone to incorporate: RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  18:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Zynga and Adknowledge filed motions to compel arbitration.
 * In August, Magistrate Judge Laporte granted Zynga's motion to compel arbitration but denied Adknowledge's motion. Proceedings would be stayed for Adknowledge pending the results of the Zynga arbitration.
 * Swift dismissed her claims against Zynga with prejudice thereafter, lifting the stay to the Adknowledge claims.
 * Adknowledge has since appealed to the 9th circuit the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. Briefing looks like it is scheduled for a decision in 2012.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)