As a reminder of just how badly split courts are on a wide range of questions related to the law of pseudonymous litigation, from Judge Kent Wetherell (N.D. Fla.) Wednesday in Doe v. Apple, Inc.: This case is before the Court based on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym. No response is needed. {Even if the motion is not opposed by Defendant (as it appears that it will not be), the Court is not required to grant it.} Plaintiff has asserted multiple claims against Apple, Inc., related to its design, manufacture, and marketing of the Apple AirTag. The claims…

AI & Crypto

Read More

Politics

Don't Miss!