Unprecedented ‘Meta’ Domain Name Registrations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.02.21
Thursday’s announcement that Facebook is rebranding itself as ‘Meta’ resulted in an unprecedented number of new domain name registrations. Since Friday, we have identified over 48,000 new ‘meta’ domain names by way of the award-winning and bespoke brand protection and cybersecurity platform designed and engineered by Crowell & Moring senior counsel Alexander Urbelis.
Critically, a significant number of these newly-registered domains incorporate the names of companies and organizations, or well-known trademarks, e.g., meta-[company name].com or meta[trademark].com. Potentially used for phishing or misinformation, these domains may present cybersecurity issues, and may also constitute threats to brand strength. As a result, we recommend that companies preemptively register domains with the above syntax to prevent them from falling into the hands of cybersquatters or threat actors.
This unprecedented onslaught of domain name registrations also highlights the crossover and complementary nature of brand protection and cybersecurity efforts, giving companies the opportunity to strengthen their cybersecurity posture by protecting valuable trademark rights and prioritizing unauthorized domain registrations en masse.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
