If you had or have a Paypal account that was active between 2006 and 2015 (and who hasn’t?) you may be entitled to money from Paypal under the settlement of a class action lawsuit against Paypal. The lawsuit against Paypal, Moises Zepeda v. PayPal Inc. (case number 4:10-cv-02500-SBA, the full Zapeda v. Paypal complaint is below), was filed back in 2010, and is finally settled.

For years it has been the case that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has had a chilling effect on, among other things, security research. That is because the intended chilling effect on copying things, such as music, also bleeds over to research and development of anything related to any device or code which is ‘protected’ under the DMCA. Legal scholars, technologists, and security researchers have argued that the DMCA – and in particular section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act – is unconstitutional for this very reason.

A Federal court has ruled that Microsoft is within its rights to refuse to comply with a U.S. warrant that demanded the production of email stored on a Microsoft server located in Ireland. The decision in the lawsuit, involving a warrant issued by the government under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), was handed down by a Federal Court of Appeals in the United States, meaning that unless the Feds want to take it to the Supreme Court, it is now the law of the land.

Snapchat is being sued for curating sexually explicit material and making it available to minors. The class action lawsuit against Snapchat is over the Snapchat ‘Discover’ service. Snapchat Discover curates content from “top publishers”, such as Vice, Cosmo, Buzzfeed, CNN, and People. It’s the first, Vice, among others, which has lead to this lawsuit, as Vice contains content that is clearly R (some would say X) rated, and so not suitable for children (Snapchat rates itself as being for age 13 and up).

Peter Deacon had been a Pandora user for years, using Pandora’s free service. Then Pandora shared his private information, including his full name, his music preferences, and what he listened to, both on Facebook, and for anyone searching the Internet, Not cool, he thought, and sued for breach of privacy. But the Michigan high court ruled last week that because he doesn’t pay for the Pandora account, he is not a ‘customer’, and so not entitled to privacy protection.

In a stunning decision, a Federal court has held that a user has no expectation of privacy for their personal computer if they have connected that computer to the Internet. While the case and holding is fairly complex, this part of the holding boils down to this: in this day and age we know that computers that are connected to the Internet can be hacked, and knowing this, we are not entitled to an expectation of privacy on our personal computers.

As we reported last month, Microsoft has been pushing the update to Windows 10 on its users even if they didn’t ask for it, don’t want it, and thought they were refusing it. Now Teri Goldstein of Sausalito, California has won $10,000 from Microsoft after suing MS for the unauthorized upgrade, which she says ruined her computer.

One of the top Walking Dead spoiler fan sites, The Spoiling Dead Fans, has received a cease and desist letter from AMC’s lawyers over concerns that the site would post spoilers as to who was the ‘Lucille victim’ in the season 6 finale of The Walking Dead. (AMC stands for American Multi-Cinema, and the full name of the company is American Multi-Cinema Film Holdings.) AMC is, of course, the network that distributes The Walking Dead.

For more than four years we have been telling you that law enforcement can get to any electronic communications you have stored for more than 180 days in the cloud (and that ‘cloud’ is just a fancy word for “somebody else’s computer”). This is because the Electronics Communication Privacy Act (ECPA) only requires a subpoena in order for a governmental agency to get at those communications records that you have stored on that third-party server – they do not need a warrant.

A new law introduced in New York would allow police to take your cell phone on the spot, and analyze it to determine whether you were on the phone, or texting, or reading email, in the moments leading up to the accident. Dubbed the Textalyzer – or Textalizer – the bill’s proponents say that the concept is not much different than a Breathalyzer, which police use on the spot to see whether someone is over the legal blood alcohol limit while behind the wheel.

If you don’t have kids who use children’s apps, you may not be aware of the lawsuits against Apple, Google, and Amazon for allowing children to make unauthorized (because unauthenticated by password) purchases in apps that are geared towards children.

What would you do if you posted a review on Yelp and then were sued by the business that you had reviewed, over that Yelp review? That’s exactly the situation that Robert Duchouquette and his wife Michelle found themselves in after posting a negative Yelp review for Dallas pet sitting service Prestigious Pets.

Jonathan McRae was arrested while wearing an Anonymous mask during a public hearing regarding election and voting issues in Maricopa county, Arizona. Note that we did not say that he was arrested for wearing the Anonymous mask, but rather while wearing the Anonymous (Guy Fawkes) mask. And, in fact, the mask wasn’t even covering his face (he had it up on his head – see the below video link).

In case you haven’t heard, social media prenups are a thing now. (What is a social media prenup? It’s a prenuptial agreement spelling out what you can – and more importantly what you can’t – post about the other person on social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc..)

In the latest round over the Feds’ effort to force Apple to help them break into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, and Apple’s refusal to do so, Apple has come out with both fists up. The Feds most recent court filing accuses that “Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights.” In response, Apple’s general counsel, attorney Bruce Sewell, said during a press conference call that “…it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American.” (Full text below.)