Preliminary Injunctions

Subscribe to Preliminary Injunctions via RSS

In an opinion filed January 23, Judge Daniels denied a motion (covered here) in which DoorDash and Uber sought to preliminarily enjoin, as improperly “compelled speech,” a new New York City law requiring that online food ordering services provide an option to tip before the order is placed and to include an option for a tip of at least 10%.

DoorDash and Uber used to customarily include a tip option before the order was placed, but, in December 2023, the City passed a “Minimum Pay Law” for delivery workers, and so they moved the tip prompt to a screen that would appear after checkout—and which resulted in a significant decline in tips. The new law was passed in response to the tip decline.

Judge Daniels concluded that the DoorDash and Uber were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the speech at issue was commercial speech—speech that is “linked inextricably” to a commercial transaction—and so subject to less First Amendment protection. Judge Daniels rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to characterize the law as forcing them to “convey the City’s preferred message regarding tipping,” and found that the speech at issue merely reflected their “economic interests” in a commercial transaction:Continue Reading Judge Daniels Refuses To Preliminarily Enjoin City Law Requiring Online Food Orders To Include An Upfront Tipping Option

Earlier this month, DoorDash and Uber Eats filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin New York City’s new law requiring that online food ordering services provide an option to tip before the order is placed and to include an option for a tip of at least 10%.  According to the plaintiffs, the law compels speech that they do not wish to communicate, in violation of the First Amendment:Continue Reading DoorDash and Uber Eats Seeks To Enjoin City Law Requiring Upfront Tipping Option

In an opinion Monday, Judge Abrams granted, in part, a motion by one insurance brokerage, Marsh & McLennan (referred to as MMA), to preliminarily enjoin a rival, Alliant, and certain employees that had left to join Alliant, from poaching clients, in violation of certain contractual non-solicitation obligations.

Judge Abrams enjoined further poaching but would not go so far as to enjoin Alliant from servicing clients that had already left because there was no “indication that MMA’s lost clients would return” if an injunction issued and because, even if MMA were to ultimately prove the client defections resulted from contractual breaches or tortious behavior, the appropriate remedy would be damages (even potentially punitive damages), not a preliminary injunction:Continue Reading In Corporate Raiding Case, Judge Abrams Enjoins Poaching Clients But Not Servicing Ones That Have Already Left

In an opinion Tuesday, Judge Carter issued an injunction against New York’s newly-enacted online hate speech law (see our prior coverage here).

The law would require social media platforms to develop policies for addressing, and responding to user complaints about, “hateful conduct.”  Judge Carter found that, in doing so, the law impermissibly compelled the challengers — Rumble and other “pro-free speech” online platforms — to engage in speech with which they disagreed:Continue Reading Judge Carter Enjoins New York’s New Online Hate Speech Law on First Amendment Grounds

Judge Carter will hold a preliminary injunction hearing next week in a case challenging, on First Amendment grounds, a new New York law (N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 394-ccc) that requires social media platforms to develop policies for addressing, and for responding to user complaints about, “hateful conduct.”

The challengers are operators of online platforms who argue that they should not be forced to police what the state vaguely defines as “hateful” conduct. Merely having to separately define what is “hateful” conduct, and provide special treatment to users who complain about conduct meeting that definition, amounts to an endorsement of the State’s views, according to the challengers:Continue Reading Judge Carter to Hold Hearing Next Week on Whether to Enjoin New York’s New Online Hate Speech Law

In an opinion Tuesday, Judge Crotty preliminarily enjoined New York State from enforcing unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”) regulations against a non-profit that counsels New Yorkers facing debt-collection actions (see our prior coverage here).

Judge Crotty found that UPL regulations were commonly upheld as regulating conduct, but, as applied to the that the program at issue, the UPL regulations governed speech:
Continue Reading Judge Crotty: Non-Profit’s Advice on Dealing With Debt Collection Actions Is Protected by First Amendment Against “Unauthorized Practice of Law” Regulations

In an opinion today, Judge Ramos denied a motion to preliminary enjoin recent changes to the admissions process for New York City’s eight elite, specialized schools, which generally admit students based solely on a highly competitive test.  Last summer, the City announced modified the criteria somewhat to set aside a larger proportion of each class for disadvantaged students, with the aim of creating greater diversity.

The challengers alleged that the changes discriminate against Asian-Americans, but Judge Ramos, in denying a preliminary injunction, found that they were unlikely to succeed on that claim:
Continue Reading Judge Ramos Refuses to Enjoin Initiative to Diversify NYC’s Elite “Specialized” Schools

In an order last week, Judge Oetken granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the purveyors of the cryptocurrency “AlibabaCoin” from continuing to use the marks of Alibaba Group, the global e-commerce company based in China.  According to Alibaba Group, defendants “published a variety of promotional materials that impermissibly use Alibaba’s trademarks in an effort to align AlibabaCoin with Alibaba in the minds of potential consumers.”

Notably, Judge Oetken addressed whether cryptocurrency transactions purportedly occurring in Belarus could be subject to personal jurisdiction in New York by analogizing cryptocurrency to debit card transactions:
Continue Reading Judge Oetken Enjoins “AlibabaCoin” from Using Alibaba Group’s Marks; Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over Cryptocurrency Transactions Made Using Blockchain in Belarus

In an opinion last week, Judge Stanton granted video game manufacturer Take-Two’s request for an injunction against the creator of two software programs that allowed users to cheat at Take-Two’s “Grand Theft Auto V” video game.  Among other functions, the computer programs allow users to use an unlimited amount of in-game currency that otherwise had to be purchased from Take-Two.  Take-Two alleged that the cheat software violated Take-Two’s copyright in “Grand Theft Auto V” and also violated the terms of the user agreement.

In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Stanton focused on the harm to both the public as well as Take-Two:
Continue Reading Judge Stanton Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Creator of “Grand Theft Auto V” Cheat Software

In an opinion today, Judge Oetken clarified a preliminary injunction granted to the maker of a product called “My Cinema Lightbox,” a backlit sign similar to old-fashioned movie theater displays (see image below), against a similar product called “My Marquee Lightbox.”   After winning its motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff  began instructing retailers that they could no longer sell “My Marquee Lightbox.”  Judge Oetken clarified that the Order did not permit the plaintiff to do so:
Continue Reading Judge Oetken: Preliminary Injunction Winner in Trademark Case Cannot Direct Third Party Retailers to Stop Selling the Accused Product