Welcome back for another week of What's Next, where we report on the intersection of law and technology. Here's what we've got for you today:

>> Twitter might be ordered to hand over documents tied to the platform's use in the genocide in Myanmar.

>> Courts attempt to clear up ridesharing's disputed relationship with drivers.

>> This social media platform might be the next magnet for privacy litigation.

Let's chat: Email me at [email protected] and follow me on Twitter at @a_lancaster.

SPONSORED BY ALM

Office 365 For Dummies, 3rd Edition ($19.99 Value) FREE for a Limited Time

Office 365 For Dummies offers a basic overview of cloud computing and goes on to cover Microsoft cloud solutions and the Office 365 product in a language you can understand. This includes an introduction to each component which leads into topics around using each feature in each application. READ MORE

Rohingya people make their way to permanent tents in the Kutupalong Refugee Camp in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, on Thursday, Sept. 21, 2017. Photographer: Ismail Ferdous/Bloomberg

When a Social Media Platform is Used for Deadly Propaganda

Twitter might be pulled into the judicial proceedings in the International Court of Justice in The Hague over the genocide against the Rohingya people, an ethnic and religious minority in Myanmar.

Foley Hoag is representing West African country The Republic of Gambia, an interested party which is seeking to hold Myanmar accountable for the genocide. Gambia is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to allow it to subpoena Twitter for hate speech disseminated on the platform that instigated violence, and for documents supporting allegations that Myanmar government officials "engaged in platform manipulation and coordinated inauthentic behavior on Twitter to advance anti-Rohingya policies and propaganda."

"Social media platforms are the dominant means in Myanmar of disseminating anti-Rohingya hate speech and incitement to violence," Foaley Hoag's Paul Reichler, M. Arsalan Sulema and Andrew Loewenstein wrote in Monday's filing. "The UN Fact-Finding Mission concluded that such hate speech against the Rohingya is pervasive in Myanmar, and that '[m]essages portraying Rohingya as violent, dishonest, anti-Bamar, anti-Buddhist, illegal immigrants and/or terrorists … are particularly widespread on social media."

The lawyers aim to prove Myanmar's "genocidal intent" with tweets from country officials, as well as rank-and-file soldiers and armed civilians.

In particular, Gambia is hoping the court will order Twitter to comply with a deposition and the following discovery:

>> All documents produced, drafted, or published by the Twitter account of Myanmar General Min Aung Hlaing.

>> All documents produced, drafted, or published by any other account belonging to or controlled by a Myanmar state official, representative, or entity whose account was suspended or terminated by Twitter for concerns relating to human rights or the dissemination of hate speech.

>> All documents relating to any internal investigations conducted by Twitter of coordinated inauthentic behavior dating back to 2012 committed by accounts belonging to or controlled by Myanmar state officials, representatives, entities or related groups.

The ICJ proceedings began in November, with Gambia accusing Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention over mass killings and sexual violence that escalated beginning in 2016. In January, the ICJ ordered Myanmar to protect the country's Rohingya population and report back on the progress.

Courts Pin Down Ridesharing's Relationship With Drivers

This past week, we got a bit of a sneak peak into the future of the hazy legal relationship between ridesharing companies and their independent contractor drivers. Here's when ridesharing companies are responsible for drivers, according to three California judges.

During a Pandemic: Judge Ethan Schulman of San Francisco County Superior Court denied a motion for a public injunction reclassifying California Lyft drivers as employees and granted motions brought by Lyft's Keker, Van Nest & Peters counsel to compel arbitration and stay the case. Plaintiffs counsel from Lichten & Liss-Riordan sought the injunction, so that drivers could take advantage of state-mandated paid sick leave during the pandemic. Schulman said the unlawful business practices claim in the case, which U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California had kicked back to state court, sought to resolve a private dispute between drivers and Lyft, and therefore "falls squarely in the scope of the arbitration agreement." He did acknowledge, however, that "the public interest in relief here is arguably greater than in other misclassification cases," but said a "court's powers extend only so far." He said, "The extraordinary mandatory injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek here is not warranted by the record or California law."

Yet on Tuesday, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Los Angeles City Attorney Michael Feuer, and San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that companies are avoiding millions of dollars in payroll taxes and skirting their responsibility to provide benefits like health care, a minimum wage and reimbursement for expenses for ride-hail drivers.

"California taxpayers end up having to carry the load that Uber and Lyft don't want to accept," Becerra said at a press conference announcing the action.

Off the Clock: The First District Court of Appeal found that Lyft could not be held liable for collisions with drivers when they aren't picking up users, even if they're behind the wheel of a car rented as part of a company program. "According to plaintiffs, any time these drivers were in their vehicles, there would be an increased possibility they would log onto the rideshare application, particularly if there were any heightened financial incentives offered for doing so (increased fares, driving bonuses, etc.). And that possibility would constitute a benefit to Lyft and bring any driving, for any reason, at any time, within 'the scope of business,'" wrote First District Associate Justice Sandra Margulies. "We decline to create so broad a rule."

Behind Bars: What about when a ridesharing driver commits a crime? U.S Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California denied in part and granted in part Uber's motion to dismiss a case brought by a woman claiming a former driver who was kicked off the platform but still had his Uber decal kidnapped and raped her. She alleged that Uber was liable for the violence based on negligence for a flawed decal system and her belief that the driver was employed by Uber, or acted as an "ostensible agent" of the company. Corley allowed the negligence claims to move forward. "Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Uber did something that put her in a worse position—namely, that it changed the transportation industry to encourage people (women in particular) to get into vehicles with strangers based on the presence of a decal in a car window and provided assurances about the safety of riding in these Uber decaled vehicles, but did not control the distribution of the decals."

However, the judge threw out the ostensible agency claims, deciding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the assault arose from the driver's employment with Uber. Corley was not persuaded by arguments from plaintiffs counsel at Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Echeverria that the assault was foreseeable since it was made possible by Uber's business operations. She also said the "allegation that complaints of sexual assaults by Uber drivers have occurred at high rates does not support a reasonable inference that any such assault arises out of the business."

TikTok the Next Target for BIPA Litigation?

Move over Facebook and Google. There's a new tech target for biometric privacy suits.

On Thursday, two Illinois minors hit TikTok and its parent company, Beijing-based ByteDance Inc., with a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that TikTok violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by storing users' facial geometry.

Hausfeld in San Francisco and Burns Charest in Dallas said the company did not follow the proper consent and notice procedures spelled out in the BIPA law while collecting and storing facial recognition data, which is especially concerning considering 60% of active users on the platform are 16 to 24 years old, according to the complaint.

"Defendants' readiness to sacrifice the privacy rights of the TikTok App's users is particularly troubling given their demographic makeup, which consists of many minor users," the lawsuit asserts.

On the Radar

Why Oracle Might Be Sweating a Request for Extra Briefing in Row With Google "Fair use jury trials are almost unheard of, precisely because fair use so rarely revolves around disputed facts," Oracle's lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Kirkland & Ellis argue in the decade-long copyright battle against Google. "And a trial does not turn a legal question into a factual one." Read more from Scott Graham here.

Judge Gives Early Approval to $25M Class Action Settlement in Tezos ICO "This is new terrain in this litigation, so that is also something to take into account," said U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California in granting preliminary approval to the proposed deal to settle claims brought on behalf of investors who alleged that the initial coin offering on the Tezos blockchain violated U.S. securities laws. Read more from Ross Todd here.

SCOTUS Debates Generic Dot-Com Trademark Registration "If you succeed in trademarking Booking.com," Chief Justice John Roberts told Williams & Connolly partner Lisa Blatt, representing Booking.com, then competitors like ebooking.com and Eurobooking.com "will be impeded from using that term, which is an accurate description of the services and goods that they provide." Read more from Scott Graham here.

Thanks for reading. We will be back next week with more What's Next. Stay safe and healthy, everyone!