Swift v. Zynga

Status: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint denied on Nov. 3, 2010

N.D. Cal.: Ad Networks Can't Get 47 USC 230 Defense on Motion to Dismiss

Eric Goldman
The Court distinguishes the Goddard case [from Swift] because "Plaintiff has not alleged that Zynga is a 'neutral' website that merely allows third parties to post advertisements. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that Zynga is a direct participant in the fraudulent transactions that are the subject of this case, as outlined above. Therefore, at this stage, Zynga's motion to dismiss based on CDA immunity is denied." From my perspective, the court does not carefully distinguish between an ad network's economic interest (which, it's clear from the many apropos cases, is immaterial to the 47 USC 230 analysis) and an ad network's substantive contribution to the offending content.

--Order Denying Motion to Dismiss: Swift v. Zynga

See also:
N.D. Cal.: Facebook, Zynga Sued Over "Scammy Offers"

San Francisco Business Times
Social network giant Facebook Inc. and social gaming phenom Zynga Inc. are named as defendants in a federal class-action lawsuit that seeks upwards of $5 million for users allegedly scammed in online game ads, quizzes and offers.

--Complaint: Swift v. Zynga

No comments: