Business Law Case Study: Mometrix Media v. LCR Publishing

This report analyzes the case of Mometrix Media, LLC v. LCR Publishing, LLC, focusing on the trial court's denial of Mometrix's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The case involves copyright infringement claims related to publications sold on Amazon.com. LCR Publishing accused Mometrix of interfering with its business and breaching copyright. The report delves into the arguments presented, including the applicability of the TCPA, copyright law, and jurisdiction issues. It examines the role of Section 512 of the DMCA and its relevance to internet copyright infringement. The analysis highlights how the court remanded the case to the trial court for jurisdictional determination and emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence in copyright infringement cases. The report concludes by illustrating how copyright laws, such as DMCA Section 512, impact businesses, particularly those operating online, and underscores the need for businesses to comply with legal regulations to achieve success.

1Running head: FUNDAMENTALS OF BUSINESS LAW
Fundamentals of Business Law
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

2
FUNDAMENTALS OF BUSINESS LAW
Mometrix Media, LLC v. LCR Publishing, LLC, 2018 WL 3625765
In the case of Mometrix Media, LLC v. LCR Publishing, LLC, 2018 WL 3625765,
Mometrix Media, LLC (Mometrix) has been dealing with the trial court’s denial with its
motion for dismissing the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). In this case, LCR offers
its publications through Amazon.com. Similarly, Mometrix also avails its publications to the
customers. However, it has been observed by the LCR that their new study guide is having
negative reviews. To be precise, there were approximately 50 negative reviews, which were
faced by the publishing company to date. Moreover, LCR observed that their products are not
available on Amazon.com for the sale. From this, the problems for LCR increased because
Mometrix has also filed a complaint against the former thereby stating that it had breached
copyright law for four of the publications of Mometrix. On the contrary, LCR filed a suit
against the Mometrix on the grounds that the latter party was unnecessarily interfering in the
activities of the former party. This was also done because Mometrix wrongfully spoiled the
LCR's relationship with Create Space or Amazon. On the other side, Mometrix had also filed
the motion for the dismissal of the case and further argued that TCPA will be enforced in that
case. Moreover, LCR’s suit is considered as the legal action with regards to the same case.
This legal action was based on the Mometrix’s communications, which was also protected
under the TCPA. However, it can be said that if LCR can launch a prima facie notion then its
claim would be dismissed. This can happen because Mometrix will defend itself with respect
to the Jurisdiction (Leagle, 2017).
It has also been observed that Mometrix argued about the claim of LCR with the
interference of the contract by federal copyright law. It was also found that the federal courts
deal with the jurisdiction over the copyright act. Besides, copyright law is basically enhanced
by the federal statute, which generally prevents illegal activities (Tysver, 2018). In case of the
Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Chaparral Energy, LLC, 546 S.W.3d 133, 138 (Tex. 2018)

3
FUNDAMENTALS OF BUSINESS LAW
also jurisdictions have played a major role in the copyright act (Leagle, 2017). On the
contrary, according to the Claim of LCR, Mometrix wrongfully claimed the former to have
infringed the copyright law. In this regard, section 512 (d) contains the legal regulations that
need to be maintained with respect to the copyrighted work. Considering this case, it can be
stated that when Mometrix had filed the complaint under the legislation then the LCR will be
dealing with it considering the state or federal law. Hence, LCR had claimed for the
interference with respect to the issues. It can be said that the complaints are also incomplete
with respect to the Mometrix as this company is not the real proprietor of the copyright.
Moreover, Mometrix is containing the important elements of the takedown notice. Thus, LCR
argued with regards to section 512 but was not applicable to the case as Create space is not
the service provider against whom the aforementioned section is applicable (Courtlistener,
n.d.).
According to Thomson Reuters (2010), these laws are found to highly influence not
only the organisation but also the entire business. Hence, gathering understanding from the
legal case discussed above, it can be affirmed that close compliance of business regulations
can direct the company towards higher success. Moreover, Thomson Reuters (2010) further
highlighted that copyright law mainly helps in protecting the original works of the company
thereby providing exclusive rights to the intellectual property owners. Since the case of
Mometrix Media, LLC v. LCR Publishing, LLC, 2018 is related to copyright law, which has
been influencing all the businesses in a significant manner. The main problem was that
‘Court of Appeals of Texas’ could not determine that section 512(c) is applicable in this case
or not especially considering the insufficiency of evidence. In the end, the court remanded the
case to the ‘trial court’ in order to determine its jurisdiction (Court Listener, n.d.). This shows
that after the above mentioned case, the businesses must provide ample evidence after filing a
suit so that proper jurisdiction can be determined especially regarding copyright

4
FUNDAMENTALS OF BUSINESS LAW
infringement. Moreover, Section 512 of DMCA was meant to protect internet copyright
infringement; hence, all the businesses conducting their activities through the internet are
affected by this law (Asp, 2018).
Furthermore, the impact of Section 512 on an organisation must also be considered.
For instance, Healthline Media is responsible for managing HealthWEB (a network
comprising health publishers). This company operating procedures include providing
information to millions of people all over the US (Healthline Media, 2019). This function of
providing health related information through the internet can be highly influenced by section
512 because if any of the published information violates the copyright law then the company
can be charged. On the other hand, a similar instance can be evident in other site but before
filing a case against the other company, Healthline Media must have ample evidence to prove
that copyright law has been infringed so that the court’s verdict can be in favour of the
company.

5
FUNDAMENTALS OF BUSINESS LAW
References
Asp, Emily M. (2018). Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: User
Experience and User Frustration. Retrieved September 28, 2019, from
https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-103-issue-2/section-512-of-the-digital-
millennium-copyright-act-user-experience-and-user-frustration/
Courtlistener. (n.d.). Mometrix Media, LLC v. LCR Publishing, LLC, 03-17-00570-CV (Tex.
App. 2018). Retrieved September 28, 2019, from
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4522624/mometrix-media-llc-v-lcr-publishing-
llc/
Healthline Media. (2019). About Us. Retrieved September 28, 2019, from
https://www.healthline.com/about
Leagle, Inc. (2017). Mometrix media, llc v. Lcr publishing, llc. Retrieved September 28,
2019, from https://www.leagle.com/decision/intxco20180731587
Leagle, Inc. (2017). Oncor electric v. Chaparral energy. Retrieved September 28, 2019, from
https://www.leagle.com/decision/intxco20180427862
Thomson Reuters. (2010). Copyright — how does it affect my business? Retrieved September
29, 2019, from https://www.cleardocs.com/clearlaw/intellectual-property/copyright-
how-it-affects-my-business.html
Tysver, D. A. (2018). Copyright law in the United States. Retrieved September 28, 2019,
from https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.htmla