|
Howard, et al. v. America Online, Inc., et al.
On March 13, 1997, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint, which claimed that AOL engaged in fraudulent billing practices, securities fraud, fraud against a packaging supplier, fraudulent promotion of its "flat-fee" program, improper charges to subscribers and violations of its duty to protect subscribers' privacy rights and copyrights. The district court granted AOL's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, on September 22, 1997.
Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on October 22, 1997. Although Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b), the district court orally refused to grant the motion. AOL moved for dismissal, which the district court granted with prejudice on May 19, 1998. Plaintiffs appealled.
On March 29, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling that class-action consumer plaintiffs
may not use claims against an internet service provider (ISP) that were settled in a prior
state-court action as the basis for an alleged pattern of racketeering activity in a
federal action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Howard, et al. v. America Online, Inc.,
et al. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Howard, et al. v. America Online,
Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. Order
|
Online
Defamation|Junk E-mail|Decency & Content
|
| **This site is designed to
work best with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or Netscape 4.0 or higher. Other
browsers may produce varied results.**
|
Copyright © 2003 America Online, Inc. All rights reserved. |