A federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed a law firm’s defamation suit against a former client who posted one-star reviews accusing its attorneys of missing three court dates, ignoring emails and providing unethical or inadequate legal services. The reviews were either admittedly true, protected opinions based on disclosed facts or otherwise not defamatory.

A federal court in Pennsylvania allowed songwriter Donald McCloskey to pursue copyright infringement, fraud and accounting claims against an advertising agency over his music’s use, allegedly without permission, in an ad campaign for Tullamore Dew Irish whiskey. The complaint plausibly alleges the agency knew it lacked a synchronization license, helped distribute the commercials and falsely said the campaign would not proceed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of two hunting clubs that challenged state laws allowing game wardens to enter posted private land without a warrant, overturning a 2007 case involving officers’ search for evidence that a hunter had illegally baited a bear. The Pennsylvania Constitution protects land outside buildings and their immediate surroundings when owners take sufficient steps to keep others out, so officials must obtain a warrant or satisfy an exception before entering.

An appeals court in California upheld the trial court’s finding that a driver lacked standing under the Automated License Plate Recognition statute to sue for the collection and storage of his data. He claimed the collection and storage of data about his movements without notice or consent violated his privacy rights in itself, but he failed to cite any actual direct harm from alleged violations of the law, and his subject belief he was harmed is not a basis for standing.

The Second Circuit upheld a New York federal court’s decision to dismiss artist Michael Hayden’s copyright lawsuit against pop artist Jeff Koons over the latter’s “Made in Heaven” billboard artworks, which debuted in 1989 and 1990. Koons’ work depicted models on a set that included an original Hayden sculpture. Hayden claims he knew nothing about Koons and his allegedly infringing work until 2019, but the court says “the discovery rule does not allow plaintiffs to bury their heads in the sand, ignore widespread international media coverage of allegedly infringing art, and then sue for potential infringement some thirty years later.”