Sarah FackrellThis new #ScheduleNay litigation model (working title) puts a lot of pressure on the rules and norms around fair notice.
In both these cases and #ScheduleA cases, the judges often approve alternative service of process. Namely, service by email to whatever address is on file with the platforms.
In the Schedule A context, it appears that a nonzero number of defendants get actual notice that they've been sued when their accounts are frozen. In that case, at the TRO stage.
In the Schedule Nay context, there are no TROs. It looks like the accounts are frozen after the default judgment issues.
I have only seen one Schedule A service email (the one from the Luke Combs case, sent to me by the reporter who broke the story about the Florida woman who got ensnared).
It looked like spam.
If I hadn't know it was real, I would never have clicked the link.
I don't know if that's typical or if that's an outlier.
But if the Seventh Circuit upholds the practice of serving allegedly Chinese defendants by email, the issue of exactly what those emails must look like will become even more important.
The other pressure point is Coney Island: What happens if the service email goes to your spam folder (as the woman in the Luke Combs case claimed)? Does/should that affect the "reasonable time" analysis?
See Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, 146 S. Ct. 579 (2026)
Anyway, the Hague service issue is currently pending in the Seventh Circuit: www.courtlistener.com/docket/70978...
Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyu...
Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyu...