Small platforms don’t have automated takedown systems
Sonia K Katyal & Leah Chan Grinvald, 2018 - *Chancellor's Professor of Law; Co-Director, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley AND **Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School. “PLATFORM LAW AND THE BRAND ENTERPRISE” BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 32:1135, https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/facpub/article/2394/&path_info=Platform_Law_and_the_Brand_Enterprise.pdf //DH
In the context of platforms, many scholars and commentators have raised the question of whether there is a hierarchical distinction between the "platform owner" and the entrepreneurs and contractors that facilitate this economy.' 52 The same question, we argue, might also be posed in the trademark arena, that is, whether our system of contributory liability, as well intended as it might be, facilitates the formation of an unequal system that extends the benefits of trademark protection and enforcement to a few, but radically undervalues the contributions of the mini entrepreneurs that characterize platform vitality. The absence of statutory safe harbors in the trademark context often has a particularly deleterious effect on smaller ISPs and related platforms, who may face different challenges based on their limited legal resources. 15 3 Many smaller ISPs do not have automated systems to respond to 512 notices, and therefore an attention to the diversity of ISP platforms is especially critical in considering how to design better systems of notification and enforcement. 154