You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

People of Michigan v. Miquall Molic Abram

Citation: Not availableDocket: 151104

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; September 25, 2015; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court is addressing a certified question from the Ninth Circuit regarding the applicability of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act in a case involving a plaintiff's claim against Pandora Media, Inc. The central issue is whether Pandora can be classified as a business that 'rents' or 'lends' sound recordings and if the plaintiff qualifies as a 'customer' under the Act. The Court has scheduled oral arguments to deliberate on the potential response to the certified question. Parties are instructed to submit supplemental briefs within 42 days, avoiding repetition of prior arguments. Additionally, the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file an amicus curiae brief, with other interested parties also permitted to seek permission for such submissions. This procedural step highlights the collaborative and consultative approach in interpreting the statute's applicability to modern digital content platforms, with implications for privacy rights and consumer protections.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certified Question from Federal Appellate Court

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court acknowledges the receipt of a certified question from the Ninth Circuit regarding the applicability of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act in the case.

Reasoning: The Michigan Supreme Court has acknowledged a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the case of Peter Deacon v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Interpretation of Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act

Application: The case considers whether Pandora Media, Inc. is considered a business that 'rents' or 'lends' sound recordings and whether Deacon is a 'customer' under the Act.

Reasoning: The focus is on whether Deacon has presented a valid claim against Pandora under the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act, specifically whether Pandora qualifies as a business that 'rents' or 'lends' sound recordings and whether Deacon qualifies as a 'customer' by 'renting' or 'borrowing' these recordings.

Supplemental Briefing and Amicus Curiae Participation

Application: The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs, and amicus curiae briefs are invited to provide additional perspectives on the case.

Reasoning: Parties involved are required to file supplemental briefs within 42 days, ensuring these briefs do not simply reiterate previous submissions. The Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to submit an amicus curiae brief, and other interested individuals or groups may also seek permission to file amicus curiae briefs.