N.D. Cal.: Ad Networks Can't Get 47 USC 230 Defense on Motion to Dismiss
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
N.D. Cal.: Facebook, Zynga Sued Over "Scammy Offers"
San Francisco Business Times