Law
-
Publisher / distributor Distinction: "At common
law, “primary publishers,” such as book, newspaper, or magazine publishers, are
liable for defamation on the same basis as authors. Book sellers, news vendors, or
other “distributors,” however, may only be held liable if they knew or had reason
to know of a publication’s defamatory content. (Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d at p. 331;
Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts (5th ed.1984) § 113, pp. 810-811; Rest.2d
Torts, § 581, subd. (1), & coms. c, d, & e, pp. 232-234; see also Osmond v. EWAP,
Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852-854.)"" [Barrett Slip at 9]
- "The Zeran court held that the publisher/distributor distinction makes no
difference for purposes of section 230 immunity. Publication is a necessary
element of all defamation claims, and includes every repetition and distribution of
a defamatory statement. (Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d at p. 332, citing Prosser &
Keeton, The Law of Torts, supra, § 113, pp. 799, 802, 803, and Rest.2d Torts, §§
558, subd. (b) & 577.) Although “distributors” become liable only upon notice,
they are nevertheless included in “the larger publisher category.” (Zeran, supra,
129 F.3d at p. 332.) “Zeran simply attaches too much importance to the presence
of the distinct notice element in distributor liability. . . . [O]nce a computer
service provider receives notice of a potentially defamatory posting, it is thrust
into the role of a traditional publisher. The computer service provider must decide
whether to publish, edit, or withdraw the posting. In this respect, Zeran seeks to impose liability on AOL for assuming the role for which § 230 specifically
proscribes liability—the publisher role.” (Id. at pp. 332-333.)" [Barrett Slip at 9]
- Dot Kids Legislative History
-
In 2002, Congress
enacted the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act. A House committee
report notes that the purpose of this legislation was "to facilitate the creation of a
new, second-level Internet domain within the United States country code domain that will be a haven for material that promotes positive experiences for children
and families using the Internet." (H.R. Rep. 107-449 (2002) p. 5) The legislation
includes a provision that the new registry it created, and related entities, "are
deemed to be interactive computer services for purposes of section 230(c) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c))." (47 U.S.C. § 941(e)(1).) The
committee report explains that this provision was "intended to shield the '.kids.us'
registry, registrars, and parties who contract with the registry, from liability based
on self-policing efforts to intercept and take down material that is not 'suitable for
minors' or is 'harmful to minors.' The Committee notes that ISPs [Internet
service providers] have successfully defended many lawsuits using section 230(c).
The courts have correctly interpreted section 230(c), which was aimed at
protecting against liability for such claims as negligence[.] (See, e.g., Doe v.
America Online, 783 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2001)) and defamation (Ben Ezra,
Weinstein, and Co. v. America Online, 206 F.3d 980 (2000); Zeran v. America
Online, 129 F.3d 327 (1997)). The Committee intends these interpretations of
section 230(c) to be equally applicable to those entities covered by H.R. 3833."17
(H.R. Rep. 107-449, p. 13.) [Barrett Slip at 9]
Congressional Record
141 Cong. Rec. H8469- H8470 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995):
"I will give you two quick examples: A Federal court in New York, in a case involving CompuServe, one of our on-line service providers, held that CompuServe would not be liable in a defamation case because it was not the publisher or editor of the material. It just let everything come onto your computer without, in any way, trying to screen it or control it.
"But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that Prodigy, CompuServe's competitor, could be held liable in a $200 million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment bank would go out of business and was run by crooks.
"Prodigy said, 'No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us.'
"The court said, 'No, no, no, no, you are different; you are different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind of material away from your subscribers. You don't permit nudity on your system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face higher, stric[t]er liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material.'
"Mr. Chairman, that is backward. We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see. This technology is very quickly becoming available, and in fact every one of us will be able to tailor what we see to our own tastes. . . .
"Mr. Chairman, our amendment will do two basic things: First, it will protect computer Good Samaritans, online service providers, anyone who provides a front end to the Internet, let us say, who takes steps to screen indecency and offensive material for their customers. It will protect them from taking on liability such as occurred in the Prodigy case in New York that they should not face for helping us and for helping us solve this problem. Second, it will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the Internet . . . ."
Caselaw
- Section 230 of Communications Decency Act shields websites from defamation liability, InternetCases 7/22/2005
- Appeals Court
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009)
- Doe v. MySpace Inc.
 , 2008 WL 2068064
(5th Cir. May 10, 2008) (defendant not liable for failure to to institute adequate safety measures to prevent sexual predators)
- Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, CV-03-09386-PA (9th Cir April 2008) (Sec. 230 Immunity not affording housing website where third parties uploaded content potentially in violation of fair housing laws), 9th Cir 4/18/2008
- DiMeo v. Max , 2007 WL 2717865 (3rd Cir. Sept. 19, 2007) (6 page decision)
- Finding defendant not liable for comments left by third parties on a blog - Slip 4: "Max's website [Blog] is an interactive computer service because it enables computer
access by multiple users to a computer server. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) . . . DiMeo's
complaint alleges that Max is a publisher of the comments on the website. However,
DiMeo does not allege that Max authored the comments on the website or that he is an
information content provider. See 47 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(3) . . . As such, the website posts alleged in the complaint must constitute
information furnished by third party information content providers."
- Third Circuit affirms Dimeo v. Max - Section 230 immunity applies to forum board operator, Internet Cases 11/13/2007
- DiMeo v. Max Affirmed by Third Circuit, Tech and Marketing Law Blog (Sept 24, 2007) ("The only "remarkable" aspect is that the Third Circuit--fortunately--doesn't cite to the Roommates.com opinion at all.")
- Court upholds dismissal of suit over Web site postings Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Sept 28, 20007)
- Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC , CV-03-09386-PA (9th Cir. May 15, 2007)
- Universal Communication Systems, Inc. v. Lycos, Inc. , 2007 WL 549111 (1st Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) Lycos Not Liable for Objectionable Message Board Posting
- "In Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA),
47 U.S.C. § 230, Congress has granted broad immunity to entities,
such as Lycos, that facilitate the speech of others on the
Internet. Whatever the limits of that immunity, it is clear that
Lycos's activities in this case fall squarely within those that
Congress intended to immunize. UCS attempted to plead around this
Section 230 statutory immunity by asserting that Lycos did not
qualify for immunity and that UCS's claims fell within certain
exceptions to that immunity. The district court rejected these
arguments and dismissed the claims against Lycos and Terra Networks
for failure to state a claim. We agree and affirm the dismissals,
joining the other courts that have uniformly given effect to
Section 230 in similar circumstances."
- Perfect 10 v. CCBill (9th Cir Mar. 29, 2007) (Good Samaritan protection from liability for third party content)
- Grace v eBay Court of Appeals CA Feb 5, 2004 Unpublished - holding eBay protected from liability
- Carfano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (subscription-based dating website which provided a questionaire was not the content provider of the responses to that questionaire)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2812, 159 L. Ed. 2d 246 (2004) (non profit website and listserv concerning stolen art)
- 230(c) affords "broad immunity" n. 19
- "One court has suggested that Congress might provide notice, “takedown,”
and “put-back” procedures similar to those in the DMCA as a way of
limiting the broad scope of section 230 immunity, which currently gives service
providers little incentive to remove defamatory postings."
- Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003),
, cert denied, 540 US 877 (2003). (In a case involving comments in a chat room, "The court reasoned that Green was attempting "to hold AOL liable for decisions relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from its network - actions quintessentially related to a publisher's role. Section 230 'specifically proscribes liability' in such circumstances."")
- Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 98 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 824, 121 S. Ct. 69, 148 L. Ed. 2d 33 (2000);.
- Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937, 118 S. Ct. 2341, 141 L. Ed. 2d 712 (1998).
- District Court
- Nasser v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Dist. Court, WD Virginia 2012
- Nieman v. VERSUSLAW, INC., Dist. Court, CD Illinois 2012 (§ 230 of the CDA may not be used to bar a civil RICO claim because that would impair the enforcement of a Federal criminal statute.)
- Glenn Reit, DDS v Yelp, Inc!,
600555/2010, Supreme Court, NY County (Sept 7, 2010)
- Rosetta Stone v Google,
Case No. 1:09cv736 (GBL/TCB) (EDVA Aug 2, 2010)
- e360Insight, LLC v. Comcast Corp., (ND Ill 2008) (Sec 230 defense successful regardless of plaintiff's compliance with Can Spam Act), ND ILL 4/17/2008
- Children of America v. Magedson , CV 2007-003720 (AR Superior Court Oct. 31, 2007) (Ripoff Report case) (See Want to Sue Ripoff Report?)
-
Global Royalties Ltd v Xcentric Ventures LLC , No. 07-956-PHX-FJM, Order (DCAr Oct 10, 2007) A third party made comments on defendant's website ripoffreport.com about plaintiff. Plaintiff received a judgment in Canada enjoining defendant. Plaintiff seeks enforcement in the US . Defendant raises CDA sec. 230 as a defense for third party content. Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Murawski v. Pataki, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72749 (S.D.N.Y. September 26, 2007) (defendant Ask.com not liable where plaintiff demanded that Ask.com remove from its search database a website that allegedly made it appear that plaintiff was a member of the communist party) Ask.com Not Liable for Search Results or Indexing Decisions--Murawski v. Pataki , Technology and Law Marketing Blog (Sept 27, 2007)
- FTC v Accusearch , Case No 06-CV-105-D (DWY Sept 28, 2007) (Denying defendant's Sec. 230 motion for summary judgment)
- Doe v SexSearch.com, (NDOh Aug 22, 2007) (defendant immune from liability where defendant is a website where people meetup in order to have sex, 'Jane Roe' posted her profile saying that she was 18, John Doe contacted Roe, they had sex, Roe was in fact 14, Doe was charged with statutory rape, and Doe sued Sexsearch.com for beach of contract, and fraud. Doe argued that Sexsearch.com should be liable because it reserved the right to modify the content of the profiles. Sexsearch's motion to dismiss was granted pursuant to 47 USC 230 "because the complaint did not allege that SexSearch had modified the content.")
- Zango v Kaspersky Lab, Inc., Case No. C07-0807-JCC (WDWA Aug 28, 2007) on appeal 9th Cir. (defendant, vendor of a malware filtering program, is immune from liability pursuant to 230(c)(2)(A) where it identified plaintiff's program as potentially malware).
- Avery v. IdleAire Technologies Corp., [ED Tenn, 2007]. (Good Samaritan provision does not provide immunity from claim that pornography on computer creates a hostile work place).
- Eckert v Microsoft Corp., No. 06-11888 (EDMi Feb. 13, 2007) (Defendant protected from liability; fact that defendant had notice of defamatory posting is not relevant to immunity).
- Doe v MySpace Inc., 2007 WL 471156 (WDTx Feb. 13, 2007) (granting social networking sites motion to dismiss, finding MySpace to be an intermediary that provides a forum for third-part content)
- Doe v Bates, No. 5:05-CV-91-DF-CMC (EDTX Dec. 27 2006) (finding that defendant Yahoo! is immune from civil liability based on third party content in a Yahoo! hosted forum in which child pornography was exchanged)
- Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under The Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 461 F Supp 2d 681 (ND Ill 2006) (
"Near-unanimous case law holds that Section 230(c) affords immunity to ICSs against suits that seek to hold an ICS liable for third-party content." )
- 800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo.com,
437 F. Supp. 2d 273, 295 (D.N.J. 2006)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, (D Or Nov. 8, 2005)
- Roskowski v. Corvallis Police Officers' Ass'n., Civ. No. 03-474-AS (D Or 2005)
- Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, Case 4:05-cv-00010-RAS (CDCa Sept.
30, 2004)
- Contra Batzel v. Cremers, 2001 US Dist LEXIS 8929 (C.D. Cal.)
- Jane Doe v. AOL, No SC94355, Opinion (Supreme Court Florida March 8, 2001)
- John Does v. Franco Productions, US Dist. Lexis 8645 (NDIll 2000).
- Marczeski v. Law, 122 F. Supp.2d 315, 327 (D. Conn. 2000)
- Donato v. Moldow, Docket No. A-5942-02T1 (Supp. Ct. NJ Appellate Div. Jan. 31, 2005) ("In the context of traditional media, the publisher of defamatory statements might well be exposed to liability for conduct such as that alleged against Moldow." -- holding that operator of community online bulletin board is not liable for allegedly defamatory remarks posted to bulletin board by anonymous third parties)
- Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (DDC 1998).
- Jane Doe v. AOL and Richard Lee Russell, 718 So. 2d 385 (4th District Court of Appeals, Fla., October 14, 1998).
- Eric Goldman, Selected Cases Regarding Online Service Provider Liability
- Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 WL 323710, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).
- See Senate Report Number 104-230, Second Session, page 194 (1996)
[“One of the specific purposes of [section 230] is to overrule Stratton Oakmont v.
Prodigy and any other similar decisions”]; House of Representatives Conference
Report Number 104-458, Second Session, page 194 (1996) [“The conferees
believe that [decisions like Stratton Oakmont] create serious obstacles to the
important federal policy of empowering parents to determine the content of
communications their children receive through interactive computer services”];
141 Congressional Record H8469-H8470 (daily ed., June 14, 1995) [statement of
Rep. Cox, referring to disincentives created by Stratton Oakmont decision].
- State Court
- Lansing v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 6th Div. 2012
- Shiamili v. Real Estate Grp
.
of N
.
Y
.
, Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 281, 952 N.E.2d 1011, 929
N.Y.S.2d 19 (2011) (case first impression, holding that CDA applies to Internet defamation claim against a website operator).
- Pallorium, Inc. v Jared (Cal Ct. App. 2007) (unpublished) (defendant who maintained a public database of open relay servers - computers frequently exploited in order to distribute spam - is immune from liability pursuant to Good Samaritan provisions of the CDA)
- Barrett v. Rosenthal, S122953, 146 P.3d 510, 513 ( Cal. 2006) (S Ct California Nov. 20, 2006) (finding that §230 creates immunity for a defendant who republishes defamatory speech regardless whether the ISP acted served more than a completely passive conduit) *** An Excellent Review of the Legilsative and Litigation History of Sec. 230.
- Capital Corp. Merchant Banking, Inc. v. Corporate Colocation, Inc., 2008 WL 4058014 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2008)
- Bauer v. Glatzer (N.J Superior Ct. July 21, 2008)
- Donato v. Moldow, Superior Court NJ DOCKET NO. A-5942-02T1 (Jan. 31, 2005) (web forum found not liable for third party content in suit brought by politicians who felt defamed)
- Gentry v. eBay, Inc. 6/26/02 CA4/1, 99 Cal.App.4th 816 CA 6/28/02 - Gentry v. Ebay, Super Ct No GIC746980 (Court of Appeals, 4th App. District, State of California ( June 26, 2002) (holding eBay immune from liability for content provided by sellers on the service).
- Barrett v. Clark, 2001 WL 881259, *9 (Cal. Super.)
- Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc., 31 P.3d 37 ( Wash. App. 2001).
- Lunney v. Prodigy Services Company, 250 AD 2d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998), aff'd, 723 N.E.2d 539 (N.Y. 1999) (ISP not responsible when defamatory comments posted by an imposter)
Papers
- Alan Pierce, NY Appellate Courts Wrestle with Significant Issues in Internet Defamation Cases, Albany LR2013
- Jeffrey R. Doty, Inducement or Solicitation? Competing Interpretations of the "Underlying Illegality" Test in the Wake of Roommates.com, 6 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 126 10/12/10
- Matthew Schruers , THE HISTORY AND ECONOMICS OF ISP LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY CONTENT, 88 VA L Rev 205 March 2002
- Patel, Immunizing Internet Service Providers From Third
Party Internet Defamation Claims: How Far Should Courts Go? (2002) 55 Vand.
L.Rev. 647
- McManus, Rethinking Defamation
Liability for Internet Service Providers (2001) 35 Suffolk U. L.Rev. 647
- Freiwald, Comparative Institutional
Analysis in Cyberspace: The Case of Intermediary Liability for Defamation
(2001) 14 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 569
- Lidsky, Silencing John Doe: Defamation and Discourse in Cyberspace, 49 Duke L.J.
855 (2000)
- Butler, Plotting the Return of an Ancient Tort to
Cyberspace: Towards a New Federal Standard of Responsibility for Defamation for Internet Service Providers (1999-2000) 6 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech.L.Rev.
247
- Langdon, Robert T. (1999) "The Communications Decency Act § 230: Make Sense? Or Nonsense?--A Private Person's Inability to Recover if Defamed in Cyberspace," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 73: Iss. 3, Article 11
- Sheridan,
Zeran v. AOL and the Effect of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Upon Liability for Defamation on the Internet (1997) 61 Alb. L.Rev. 147, 168
Links
News
- ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE v. XCENTRIC VENTURES LLC, (CD Ca May 4, 2011) 6/15/2011
- Ripoff Report Gets Another Big 47 USC 230 Win--Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric, Tech & Marketing Law 6/2/2011
- Dentist Has To Pay Legal Fees For Suing Yelp & Reviewer Over Bad Review, Techdirt 5/25/2011
- Dentist Pays Sizable Penalty for Not Knowing 47 USC 230--Wong v. Jing, Tech & Marketing Law 5/25/2011
- Videos from the 47 USC 230 Conference Now Online, Tech & Marketing Law 4/28/2011
- Blogger Gets 47 USC 230 Dismissal for Third Party Comment--Kruska v. Perverted Justice, Tech & Marketing Law 4/28/2011
- Blogger Gets 47 USC 230 Dismissal for Third Party Comment--Kruska v. Perverted Justice, Tech & Marketing Law 4/25/2011
- Online Booksellers Get 47 USC 230 Immunity for Publisher-Supplied Marketing Collateral--Parisi v. Sinclair, Tech & Marketing Law 4/8/2011
- Defendant Succeeds On Second Attempt With a Section 230 Dismissal--Mealer v. GMAC, Tech & Marketing Law 4/4/2011
- 47 USC 230 Retrospective Conference Recap, Tech & Marketing Law 3/21/2011
- How 47 USC 230 Improves Marketplace Efficiency, Tech & Marketing Law 3/17/2011
- Unsuccessful 230(c)(2) Defense for Blog Comment--Mealer v. GMAC, Tech & Marketing Law 3/7/2011
- Florida Court Fixes Erroneous 47 USC 230 Ruling--Giordano v. Romeo, Tech & Marketing Law 2/23/2011
- Seventh Circuit: Website operator does not have to obey injunction in defamation case, Internet Cases 1/4/2011
- Two Courts Disagree On Whether Or Not A Website Can Be Forced To Remove User-Created Defamatory Content, Techdirt 1/4/2011
- Ripoff Report Ordered to Stop Publishing User-Submitted Report--Giordano v. Romeo, Tech & Marketing Law 1/4/2011
- Joshua Dubnow, Ensuring Innovation as the Internet Matures: Competing Interpretations of the Intellectual Property Exception to the Communications Decency Act Immunity (Fall 2010), NWJTIP 12/17/2010
- Web Host Denied 230 Defense When It Allegedly "Actively Contributes" to Website--Kruska v. Perverted Justice, Tech & Marketing Law 12/1/2010
- Forwarding Defamatory Email Immunized by 47 USC 230--Mitan v. A. Neumann, Tech & Marketing Law 11/22/2010
- Ad Networks Can't Get 47 USC 230 Defense on Motion to Dismiss--Swift v. Zynga, Tech Marketing Law 11/12/2010
- Tenth Circuit: No Section 230 Immunity for Website that "Developed" Confidential Information by Publishing It, Online Liability 11/3/2010
- Jeffrey R. Doty, Inducement or Solicitation? Competing Interpretations of the "Underlying Illegality" Test in the Wake of Roommates.com, 6 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 126 10/12/10, Wash JL Tech & Arts 10/12/2010
- Two plus Two Publishing LCC v Jacknames, DNV Sept 30, 2010, DNV 10/8/2010
- Bobolas v John Does, DAR 2010, DAR 10/8/2010
- Section 230 shields Google from liability for anonymous defamation, Internet News 10/4/2010
- Yelp Wins 47 USC 230 Dismissal of Dentist's Lawsuit--Reit v. Yelp, Tech Marketing Law 9/17/2010
- ART: Scott Ness, The Anonymous Poster: How to Protect Internet Users' Privacy and Prevent Abuse, 2010 Duke L. & Tech. R. 008, Duke Law 9/13/2010
- Once Again, Yelp Not Liable For Reviews Someone Doesn't Like, Techdirt 9/13/2010
- 47 USC 230 Preempts Sponsorship/Endorsement Liability--Black v. Google, Tech & Marketing Law 9/13/2010
- Broadcaster Gets 230 Defense for Readers' Website Comments--Miles v. Raycom, Tech & Marketing Law 9/13/2010
- New Anti-Libel Tourism Act (HR 2765) Extends 47 USC 230 to Foreign Judgments, Tech & Marketing Law 8/16/2010
- Communications Decency Act immunizes hosting provider from defamation liability, Internet Cases 8/9/2010
- Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels? An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230, Citizen's Media 7/7/2010
- Craigslist Loses 230 Defense to Promissory Estoppel Claim--Scott P. v. Craigslist, Tech Marketing Law 6/14/2010
- Ninth Circuit: Section 230 bars Negligent Undertaking action, Breach of Contract claim survives, Online Liability 6/1/2010
- ReTweet ReLawsuit? Novins v. Cannon, Civ. No. 09-5354 (DNJ April 27, 2010), Cybertelecom 5/17/2010
- 230 Protects Newspaper from Liability for Reader Comments--Collins v. Purdue, Tech & Marketing Law 4/7/2010
- Crowdsourced Ads May Not Be Protected by 47 USC 230--Subway v. Quiznos, Technology & Marketing Law 3/9/2010
- 47 USC 230 Year-in-Review for 2009, Tech Marketing Law 1/6/2010
- Website Initially Denied 230 Dismissal But Gets It on Appeal--Shiamili v. Real Estate Group, Tech & Marketing Law 12/22/2009
- Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline, Techdirt 11/13/2009
- Yet Another Plaintiff Faceplant, Thanks to Section 230, Citizen's Media 10/27/2009
- Finkel v. Facebook: Court Rejects Defamation Claim Against Facebook Premised on "Ownership" of User Content, Citizen's Media 10/22/2009
- Craigslist Eludes Sheriff Dart, Thanks to CDA Section 230 Immunity, Techlaw 10/22/2009
- Craigslist Isn't Liable for Erotic Services Ads--Dart v. Craigslist, Tech Marketing Law 10/22/2009
- Court Teaches Cook County Sheriff About Section 230, Dismisses Case Against Craigslist, Techdirt 10/22/2009
- Another Good Section 230 Ruling: Forum Owner Not Liable For Posts, Techdirt 8/27/2009
- Online Retailer Isn't Liable for User Comments--Cornelius v. DeLuca, Technology & Marketing Law 8/25/2009
- Section 230: The Cornerstone of Internet Freedom, Tech Lib Front 8/20/2009
- Courts Continue to Confine the Roommates Decision to the Specific Facts of that Case, Ecom Law 8/11/2009
- Car Dealership Appeals ConsumerAffair's CDA 230 Win, Citizen's Media 9/30/2008
- Co-Website Operator Gets 47 USC 230 Defense--Best Western v. Furber, Tech & Marketing Law 9/25/2008
- StubHub Wins 230 Dismissal in Anti-Scalping Case, Tech Marketing Law 9/16/2008
- Will Section 230 Protect Bloggers From the FTC?, Info/law 7/7/2009
- Roommates.com Infects the Tenth Circuit--FTC v. Accusearch, Tech & Marketing Law 7/2/2009
- Anti-Spyware Company Protected by 47 USC 230(c)(2)--Zango v. Kaspersky, Tech & Marketing Law 6/30/2009
- Court Corrects Section 230 Opinion on Recommendation of CDT and Others, CDT 6/25/2009
- 47 USC 230 and Consumer Protection Talk Notes, Tech Marketing Law 6/25/2009
- Ninth Circuit Amends Barnes v. Yahoo! Decision, Addresses Concerns Raised by Yahoo! and Amici, Citizen's Media 6/25/2009
- Public Citizen, EFF, CDT And CMLP Team Up To Question Recent Ruling On Section 230 Safe Harbor, Techdirt 5/28/2009
- CL Sues SC AG For Declaratory Relief, Craigslist 5/21/2009
- SC AG Federal Court Filings, Craigslist 5/21/2009
- FAQ: What is Section 230?, Ecommerce Times 5/19/2009
- Ninth Circuit Mucks Up 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence....AGAIN!?--Barnes v. Yahoo, Tech & Marketing Law 5/13/2009
- EFF: AGs Have No Case, Craigslist 5/7/2009
- AG Meeting in NYC, Craigslist 5/7/2009
- Another Chink in Section 230's Armor, Tech Lib Front 5/1/2009
- Two 47 USC 230 Defense Losses--StubHub and Alvi Armani Medical, Tech Marketing Law 5/1/2009
- Anonymity, Reader Comments & Section 230, Tech Lib Front 4/9/2009
- New Hampshire Court Tramples on Constitution, Reporter's Privilege, Section 230, What Have You, Citizen's Media 4/9/2009
- Web Host/Kiddie Porn Impresario Isn't Entitled to CDA 230 Immunity, Techlaw 3/18/2009
- Republishing Solicited Email May Not Qualify for 47 USC 230 Immunization--Woodhull v. Meinel, Tech & Marketing Law 3/3/2009
- Anonymous Gripe Site Wins Legal Battle With Ohio Homebuilder Powermark Homes, Citizen's Media 1/15/2009
- Lawyer Who Sues Yelp Admits He Had No Idea About Section 230 Safe Harbors, Techdirt 1/15/2009
- Search Engines Aren't Liable for Gambling Ads Per 230--Cisneros v. Yahoo, Tech & Marketing Law 11/25/2008
- High Court Declines Review of MySpace CDA 230 Case, Techlaw 11/18/2008
- Two New Ripoff Report Cases Filed, Citizen's Media 11/18/2008
- No CDA immunity for letting co-defendant use computer to post material, Internet Cases 9/10/2008
- Pushed Into a Corner, Craigslist Bites Back, CDT 5/21/2009
- Co-Website Operator Gets 47 USC 230 Defense--Best Western v. Furber, Tech & Marketing Law 9/25/2008
- StubHub Wins 230 Dismissal in Anti-Scalping Case, Tech Marketing Law 9/16/2008
- No CDA immunity for letting co-defendant use computer to post material, Internet Cases 9/10/2008
- eBay Denied 230(c)(2) Defense Over Counterfeit Coin Policing, Tech & Marketing Law 7/18/2008
- EBay wins major victory in trademark dispute with Tiffany, CW 7/15/2008
- StubHub Denied 230 in Hannah Montana Ticket Scalping Case--Hill v. StubHub, Tech & Marketing Law 7/15/2008
- Car dealership sues consumer site over bad feedback, loses, Ars Technica 6/30/2008
- Judge rules in favor of site sued for comments, Lost Remote 6/30/2008
- Fifth Circuit issues its first Section 230 opinion, Online Liability 6/24/2008
- Is the Scope of Immunity under the CDA Shrinking?, PK 5/22/2008
- EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case, EFF 5/9/2008
- 47 USC 230 Trifecta of Cases--Friendfinder, e360insight, iBrattleboro, Tech & Marketing Law 4/29/2008
- Court Grants CDA Immunity for ISP Spam-Blocking, Tech Law Update 4/29/2008
- Roommates.com Denied 230 Immunity by Ninth Circuit En Banc, Tech & Marketing Law 4/8/2008
- Ninth Circuit: Roommates.com largely unprotected by Section 230, Online Liability 4/8/2008
- How the Roommates.com decision is good for Section 230, Internet Cases 4/8/2008
- No CDA immunity for adult-oriented Web site in right of publicity case, Internet Cases 4/3/2008
- Judge Tosses Out Lawsuit Against Citizen Journalism Site, Techdirt 4/3/2008
- Recent 47 USC 230 Developments Talk, Tech & Marketing Law 4/3/2008
- If It's On The Internet... Blame The Service Provider (Especially If It's Craigslist), Techdirt 3/28/2008
- Craigslist Gets Seventh Circuit 230 Win in Fair Housing Act Case--Chicago Lawyers' Committee v. Craigslist, Tech & Marketing Law 3/17/2008
- 7th Circuit rules in favor of Craigslist, Online Liability 3/17/2008
- 47 USC 230 Day at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Tech & Marketing Law 3/13/2008
- No Liability for Providing User-Selected Category Tags--Whitney v. Xcentric, Tech & Marketing Law 2/19/2008
- RipOffReport Litigation, Online Liability 1/22/2008
- Should CDA Section 230 Immunity Depend Upon Site Design?, Tech Law Update 1/10/2008
- Goodale on CDA 230 and Anonymous Speech Online, Citizen Media Law Project 12/11/2007
- Lawyer sues again over Web site he says defamed him -, Pittsburgh 12/4/2007
- Blogger Wins Lawsuit Over Gripe Post--BidZirk v. Smith, Tech & Marketing Law 10/30/2007
- "Immunity" not accurate description for 47 USC 230 protection, Internet Cases 11/13/2007
- More Defendants Lose 230 Defense, Technology & Marketing Law Blog 6/8/2007
- Builder sues Web site and Google over posting, Newark Star 4/27/2007
- California Court Expands Immunity for Bloggers, eWeek 11/21/2006
- One week's time, two takes on Section 230 immunity, Internet Cases 11/21/2006
- Calif. Supreme Courts upholds Internet free speech, Xinhuanet 11/21/2006
- Websites not liable for posts by others, USA Today 11/21/2006
- [Calirfornia] Supreme Court to review online speech case [230 liability], Tri Valley Herald 4/16/2004
- Settlement Reached in Long-Running Internet Libel Case, eweek 11/16/2004
- Dow Jones settles Net defamation suit, CNET 11/16/2004
- Peter H. Lewis, After Apology From Prodigy, Firm Drops Suit, N.Y. Times, Oct. 25, 1995 , at D1.
|
