Digital Transformation

Subscribe to Digital Transformation via RSS
Copyright rubber stamp and sealing wax stamrp on the craft peper. Intellectual property and copyright concept.

The Southern District of New York issued a recent opinion in Lehrman et al v. Lovo, Inc., 1-24-cv-03770 (SDNY Jul. 10, 2025) (J. Paul Oetken) regarding copyright infringement issues involving artificial intelligence models, focusing this time on voice cloning. Two voice-over actors, Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage, filed a lawsuit against Lovo, Inc., a company specializing in AI-driven text-to-speech services. The Plaintiffs alleged that Lovo used artificial intelligence to clone their voices without authorization, raising complex legal questions regarding intellectual property and privacy rights in the age of AI.

Continue Reading Fundamental Copyright Principles Underscored in AI Context: Voice Attributes Are Not Protectable

In the recent article, “Facebook and Google settled biometrics lawsuits. Look for more.” featured in Crain’s Chicago Business, Partner Jason Stiehl analyzes wider repercussions of Snapchat’s recent settlement after accusations that it used facial recognition technology that collected and stored users’ biometric information without consent. Stiehl explains that he expects more litigation due to Illinois’…

In the recent article, “Why Hermès’ MetaBirkins Lawsuit Has High Stakes for Brands and Creators”, featured in The Business of Fashion, Partner Preetha Chakrabarti expands upon her insights from the her previous blog posts on non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) and the metaverse. Previously, Chakrabarti reported on how the designer, Hermès, sued an individual named Mason…

Earlier this year, Hermès filed a trademark infringement suit against Los Angeles-based designer Mason Rothschild for creating and selling faux-fur digital renditions of the luxury Hermès Birkin handbags and using a collection of 100 NFTs, titled “MetaBirkins,” to authenticate the digital images.[1] In response, Rothschild filed a motion to dismiss Hermès’ trademark infringement claim under the Rogers test on the basis that the digital images of the Birkin bags are “art” and, therefore, receive First Amendment protection.[2] Hermès opposed, arguing that the Polaroid factors— instead of the Rogers test—should apply, to assess likelihood of confusion.[3] On May 18, 2022, the court denied Rothschild’s motion to dismiss, concluding that: (1) the Rogers test applies to the trademark infringement analysis of the “MetaBirkins” title, and (2) the Polaroid factors apply to the explicit misleadingness analysis.[4]

Continue Reading In the bag (for now): Hermès survives motion to dismiss in MetaBirkin NFT lawsuit
GettyImages-1351959218

In a recent Law360 article titled, “Meta Logo Suit May Test How Virtual TM Disputes Unfold,” Partner Preetha Chakrabarti provided her insight on a lawsuit against the similarity between Meta’s infinity-loop logo to a Swiss blockchain company’s logo and the increase in moving, multidimensional logos in the digital space. In the article, Chakrabarti emphasized the…

In recent months, the metaverse, a term that is meant to encompass a mixture of virtual reality and augmented reality, has increasingly become a conversation topic for companies and consumers. Companies have begun to invest in this space and have started staking out virtual property on platforms like Decentraland and The Sandbox. Lawsuits and trademark applications have also popped up alongside these investments. This recent legal activity indicates that the metaverse will be a critical area for companies to begin to learn about and monitor to ensure they are adequately protecting their intellectual property and avoiding risk.

In January 2022, designer Hermès sued an individual named Mason Rothschild in the Southern District of New York for his creation and sale of “Metabirkins,” which are non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) that resemble fur-covered versions of Hermès’ iconic Birkin bag. Among other things, the complaint alleges that Rothschild has engaged in trademark and trade dress dilution and infringement by selling his NFTs, one of which has already sold for $40,000, just as one would by selling a counterfeit physical bag. Interestingly, Hermès’ complaint notes that the defendant’s activity is preempting Hermès from entering the NFT market itself.
Continue Reading See You in the Metaverse: What Brands Need to Know

EC - European Commission

On July 9, 2021, the European Commission published its long-awaited draft of the revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and Vertical Guidelines. The significant changes proposed by the Commission take into account the specific challenges brought about by the growth of e-commerce and online platforms in the “digital age.” The Commission has also taken this…

Maryland became the first U.S. state to create a digital advertising tax on February 12, 2021. The Digital Advertising Gross Revenue Tax (DAGRT) was originally passed in March of 2020, but subsequently vetoed by Maryland Governor, Larry Hogan. Maryland’s legislature voted to override the Governor’s veto, however. The contentious journey for DAGRT passage is likely to be overshadowed by a litigious future.

DAGRT (full text here) imposes a progressive tax on the sale of digital advertising services’ gross revenue within the state. DAGRT focuses on large providers of digital advertising services; entities with revenue exceeding $100 million. The rate of the tax imposed, based on global revenue, is 2.5% for annual global gross receipts of $100 million to $1 billion, 5% for gross receipts of $1 billion to $5 billion, 7.5% for gross receipts of $5 billion to $15 billion, and 10% for gross receipts exceeding $15 billion. The rate then applies to digital advertising services’ gross revenue in Maryland. However, DAGRT does require all entities with an annual gross revenue derived from digital advertising services within the state over $1 million to file a specialized tax return. DAGRT’s focus on large providers of digital advertising services might incentivize these providers to find avenues to avoid the tax by changing their digital advertising strategies. For example, more companies may offer advertisement-free subscription options. It’s also possible that the companies faced with paying the tax may simply pass the cost on to the smaller businesses purchasing the advertisements and to consumers.
Continue Reading Maryland’s Digital Advertising Tax: A Contentious Start, and an Uncertain Future

Last week, the President signed the Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act into law, kicking off a multi-year process that will culminate in the first-ever federal requirements for IoT devices. Under the law, the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) is now charged with drafting and finalizing security requirements for IoT devices, as…

In the coming weeks or months, the European Commission is expected to table an ambitious set of draft legislation that, if adopted, will have a major impact on the business practices of digital service providers in the EU, including non-EU companies serving European users: the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The Commission’s legislative proposals aim to strengthen the responsibilities of online platforms and to support fair competition in digital markets.

1. The Digital Services Act (DSA): increasing responsibilities for digital service providers

The DSA’s main objective is to update the e-Commerce Directive. This is long overdue, as the legal framework for digital services has remained largely unchanged since the e-Commerce Directive was adopted in 2000. The update aims to clarify the liability regime for digital intermediaries active in the EU and to reinforce oversight and enforcement.

The DSA will require digital service providers to take more responsibility for dealing with harmful or illegal content and dangerous or counterfeit products. They will have to put in place clear and simple procedures to deal with notifications about harmful or illegal content or goods on their platforms. They will also have to verify the identity of traders before letting them on their platforms (“know your business customer”). At the same time, they will have to make available simple procedures for platform users to complain if they think the removal of their material was unwarranted.
Continue Reading New EU Proposals to Regulate Digital Markets – What to Expect