E-Commerce Law

Eastern District of Missouri Applies Section 230 in Dismissing Civil Conspiracy Claim

In Cornelius v. Deluca, 2009 WL 2568044 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 barred the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim.  Plaintiffs, who manufacture nutraceuticals, filed a state court lawsuit against a number of defendants, including the operator of the www.bodybuilding.com website (the "Website"), which arose from the posting of allegedly libelous statements about the plaintiffs and their products on the Website.

Plaintiffs Who Sued GoDaddy, Twitter, and Wordpress for Defamatory Content Written by Third Party Are About to Get Section 230 Lesson

On July 29, 2009, three plaintiffs filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York against a number of individual defendants (both known and unknown), website hosting company GoDaddy.com, micro-blogging site Twitter.com, and blog tool and publishing platform Wordpress.com.  The suit alleges that the individual defendants published defamatory statements about the plaintiffs (alleging their involvement in criminal conduct and corruption) on websites hosted by GoDaddy and Wordpress.  The same statements were also allegedly published via Twitter.

Late last year, I had the opportunity to carefully review all of the civil cases interpreting the limitations of the immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The simple rule emerging from those cases is clear: If the “essential published content” is willingly provided by a third-party, the interactive computer service provider publishing that content enjoys the full immunity afforded by Section 230. (See FAQ:  What is Section 230? & Craigslist Sues South Carolina Attorney General to Avoid Criminal Charges Against the Site and its Executives).  The broad immunity afforded by Section 230 should result in a quick dismissal of the claims against GoDaddy, Twitter, and Wordpress.

Don't forget to have free updates of E-Commerce Law content sent to you by email or RSS.

Courts Continue to Confine the Roommates Decision to the Specific Facts of that Case

When the Ninth Circuit decided Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), we opined that the opinion wasn't "all that earth-shattering. It’s crafted to be narrowly applicable to the particular case decided and should not alter the Section 230 analysis in most future cases."  Now, more than a year later, about half a dozen federal courts have espoused the same view.

E-Commerce Law Briefs: Week of May 25, 2009

Popular social networking site Facebook has settled a dispute over whether it actually owns the FACEBOOK trademark.  Think Computer "has agreed to abandon its efforts to get the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the trademark issued to Facebook in 2006."

A Facebook user has agreed to drop his $70.50 lawsuit alleging that the site failed to act reasonably to protect users from viruses.  Section 230 probably barred the suit anyway.

Each weekend, E-Commerce Law Briefs provides a brief summary and commentary on recent legal news affecting e-commerce businesses.

Craigslist Sues South Carolina Attorney General to Avoid Criminal Charges Against the Site and its Executives

A couple of weeks ago, we mentioned that the Attorney General of South Carolina was threatening to file criminal charges against the chief executive officer of Craigslist unless the site removed all sex related postings from its South Carolina sites.  Apparently, the threats continued, even after Craigslist announced that it would be eliminating its ads for "erotic services." 

Following the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, Craigslist has now filed suit against the South Carolina Attorney General, seeking declaratory relief and a restraining order prohibiting the filing of criminal charges against Craigslist or its executives.  In the Craigslist blog post announcing the move, the company said that the threatened charges were "unwarranted by the facts . . . and represent an unconstitutional prior restraint of free speech."  The company also indicated that such charges would be barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

FAQ: What is Section 230?

In the e-commerce or Internet law context, "Section 230" refers to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal law which has significantly altered the traditional legal principles applied to defamation actions and others claims based upon content published on the Internet.

Southern District of New York Holds that State Law Intellectual Property Claims are Not Barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

In Atlantic Recording Corporation et al. v. Project Playlist, Inc. 2009 WL 766224 (S.D.N.Y.) six of the world's largest record companies sued the defendant, Project Playlist, Inc. (“Project Playlist”), for copyright infringement in the District Court for the Southern District  of New York.  (See Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief).  The  Plaintiffs' claims stemmed from Project Playlist's permitting users to create playlists through links to music featured on other websites without first obtaining the approval or licensing rights from the sites.  Project Playlist moved for dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ state law claims for common law copyright infringement and unfair competition on the grounds that such claims were barred by the 47 U.S.C. § 230 (the Communications Decency Act, hereinafter the “Act”).  The Court held that though Project Playlist was an Internet service provider under the Act, it was excluded from the statutory immunity afforded by Section 230(c)(2) because the Plaintiffs' claims arose from state intellectual property law and fell under the exception set forth in Section 230(e)(2).

Federal Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Brought by Man Who Claimed to Have Used Drugs and Had Sex with President Obama

On February 10, 2009, the United States District for the District of Columbia dismissed the defamation complaint of the man who posted a YouTube video alleging that he used cocaine with, and performed a sex act on, then-state senator Barack Obama. The matter came before the court on the plaintiff's motion to compel information identifying the individuals who posted anonymous responses to the video in which they alleged that the plaintiff was lying about his allegations and was actually a patient in a mental hospital at the time that he claimed to have encountered now-President Obama.  The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to compel disclosure of the identities of the three anonymous posters and dismissed his complaint.

Most Popular E-Commerce Law Posts of 2008

Happy New Year!  Here are the most popular E-Commerce Law posts of 2008:

"David Lat Has a Stupid Fat Face" (January 24, 2008)

Take Control of Your Online Reputation (January 28, 2008)

JuicyCampus May Be the Next Internet Defamation Battleground (February 19, 2008)

Ninth Circuit: Roommates.com Not Entirely Protected by Section 230 (April 4, 2008)

Defending a Criminal Case in a Cyber World (April 23, 2008)

Copying Another Website's Terms of Use Can Lead to Trouble (June 2, 2008)

Our Internet Evidence Series (July 2008)

Should Someone Tell Christian Roommates About the Ninth Circuit's Decision in Roommates.com?

While looking for the latest discussion of the recent Roommates.com decision, I came across Christian Roommates, a free website that purports to be "your online tool for finding a Christian Roommate in your area."  Users can use the site to find "Christian" roommates or list housing for rent to other "Christians."  While the site does not require users to state their religion before gaining access to the site, it repeatedly purports to be a place for users to find Christian roommates and tenants.

Given these facts, is Christian Roommates exposed to liability under the Fair Housing Act?  Can it rely on the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?