AdvanFort v. International Registires

AdvanFort v. International Registries (5/12/15)


STATUS: Court grants motion to dismiss relating to section 230 defense.


E.D.Va.: Online Magazine Gets Section 230 Protection for Third Party Article
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
The plaintiffs alleged that the Maritime Executive was a partial information content provider.  The court's response is on the right track until it suggests that if the Maritime Executive pays for the content, then it might be a partial information content provider.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/05/online-magazine-gets-section-230-protection-for-third-party-article-advanfort-v-international-registries.htm


Opinion:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2015cv00220/314532/45

Westlake Legal Group v. Schumacher

Westlake Legal Group v. Schumacher  (8/19/14)

STATUS: Court dismissed case over improper service.

E.D. Va.: Court Sets Aside Default Libel Judgment and Injunctions Against Yelp
A Virginia lawyer and his firm had obtained a $200,000 default judgment over a negative review posted on Yelp.  Granting a motion to set aside the judgment, the Court held that service on Yelp was improper and dismissed the complaint as time barred or alternatively barred by Section 230.

Opinion:
http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/yelp08.20.14.pdf

Kimzey v. Yelp

Kimzey v. Yelp (May 7, 2014)


STATUS: Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss.


W.D. Wash.: Yelp Wins Another Section 230 Case
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
We don't see arguments too often any more about Section 230 implications of star ratings.
blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/05/yelp-wins-another-section-230-case-kimzey-v-yelp.htm


Opinion:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2013cv01734/196114/26

Seldon v. Magedson

Seldon v. Magedson (April 25, 2014)


D. Ariz. Ripoff Report's Latest Section 230 Win
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
Citing Roommates.com for the defense, the court says that screening content is immunized by Section 230.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/04/ripoff-reports-latest-section-230-win-seldon-v-magedson.htm


Opinion:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=historical

Commonwealth v. Cox

Commonwealth v. Cox. (August 2, 2013)

Pa. Super: Facebook Posting that Someone Has Herpes is Criminal Harassment
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
This is a ridiculous conviction, but due to 47 USC 230, at least the overzealous prosecutor couldn't go after Facebook for its role in this so-called harassment.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/08/student_convict_1.htm

>>Opinion:
www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S45024-13o - 1015072601679727.pdf

Braverman v. Yelp

Braverman v. Yelp (June 28, 2013)

STATUS: Court applied Section 230 to preempt lawsuit.

N.Y. Sup.Ct.: Dentist's Defamation Lawsuit Against Yelp Preempted by Section 230
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/07/dentist_lawsuit.htm

>>Order:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7431657123194601479&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Hadley v. GateHouse Media

Hadley v. GateHouse Media (7/10/12)

STATUS: Defendant's motion to dismiss granted on 7/10/2012.

N.D.Ill.: Yet Another Case Says Section 230 Immunizes Newspapers From User Comments
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
One of the safest bets in Section 230 jurisprudence is that a traditional media publisher won't be held liable for user comments to its website.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/07/yet_another_cas.htm

>>Order: Hadley v. GateHouse Media
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=historical

Vo. v. Opinion Corp

Vo. v. Opinion Corp (May 22, 2012)

STATUS: Decision given by New York Superior Court on May 22, 2012.

N.Y.Sup.Ct.: Pissed Consumer Denied Section 230 Immunity and Can't Shake Extortion Claim
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
This adds to a long-simmering split in Section 230 jurisprudence: can a plaintiff defeat a motion to dismiss simply by allegint hat the review website wrote the review in question?
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/06/pissedconsumer.htm

>>Order:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=historical

Price v. Gannett

Price v. Gannett (May 1, 2012)

STATUS: Court rules that Topix is protected by Section 230 on May 1, 2012.

S.D.W.Va.: Topix Protected by 47 USC 230
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
The plaintiffs alleged that pseudonymous posters made defamatory and otherwise tortious remarks about the plaintiffs on Topix.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/05/topix_protected.htm

Order:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/west-virginia/wvsdce/2:2011cv00628/74173/15/

Shrader v. Biddinger

Shrader v. Biddinger (Filed August 6, 2010)

STATUS: Decision on February 12, 2012 dismissing parts of Shrader's case, along with granting attorney fees to Biddinger under Colorado §13-17-201.

D.Colo.: Emailing the URL of an Allegedly Defamatory Post Immunized by 47 USC 230--Shrader v. Biddinger
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/03/emailing_the_ur.htm

Opinion: Shrader v. Biddinger
 http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=historical

Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC

UPDATE (6.17.14)


STATUS: 6th Circuit rules the dirty.com not liable.


6th.Cir.: The Dirty.com Not Liable for Defamatory Posts on Site
Washington Post ( Eugene Volokh)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/thedirty-com-not-liable-for-defamatory-posts-on-the-site/


UPDATE (5.11.2012)

STATUS: 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that cheerleader can proceed with defamation suit on May 9, 2012.

6th. Cir.: Ben-Gal Case Can Proceed
Cincinnatti Enquirer
The 6th Circuit Coirt of Appeals ruled that 2011 Ben-Gals Cheerleader Sarah Jones can proceed with her defamation lawsuit against theDirty.com.
http://nky.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20120509/NEWS010704/305090138/

Order:
http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/dirty_world_entertainment.pdf



STATUS: An order ruling against the defendant was delivered on January 10, 2012.

E. D.Ky.: The Dirty denied 47 USC 230 Immunity
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
A Kentucky judge rejected 47 USC 230 for the thedirty.com for third party content.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/01/thedirty_denied.htm

Order: Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77817530/Jones-v-Dirty-World-Denial-of-Defendant-s-Summary-Judgment-Motion

Giordano v. Xcentric Ventures et al

STATUS: Appeals Court rules that website need not take defamatory comments down on December 28, 2011.

Fla.App.: Defamed Business Can't Force Comment Off the Web
News Services of Florida
A website that allows users to post opinions about businesses without regard to whether the opinions are "true" may be appalling in its invitation to slander businesses, but it doesn't have to take the post down, a appeals court ruled.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=535291

Opinion: Giordano v. Xcentric et al
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D11-0707.pdf

Miller, et al v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana Inc, et al

Miller, et al v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, et al


UPDATE: Court of Appeals dismisses Star's appeal of local judge's order in December 2012.

Ind.App,: Court Dismisses Indy Star's Appeal
South Ben Tribune
The state Court of Appeals has dismissed the Indy Star's appeal of a local judge's order requiring it to identify a person who made anonymous comments on its website that a former executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana contends were defamatory.
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-court-dismisses-indy-stars-appeal-20121211,0,4489800.story?track=rss


STATUS: Appeal filed June 27, 2011

Ind. App.: Court weighs online commenter's rights
Indianapolis Star
The Indianapolis Star went to court to protect the identity of an online commenter named in a defamation suit.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29980839/detail.html

Ind. Super.: Order compelling discovery
http://indianalawblog.com/documents/2-23-11%20Order%20Compelling%20Discovery-Indy%20Star.pdf

Ind. App.: Brief of Appelant
https://www.eff.org/files/miller_appellant_brief.pdf

Hopkins v. Doe #1

STATUS: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend was denied and Defendant Topix's Motion to Dismiss was granted on November 28, 2011.

N.D.Ga.: Fraud Allegations Don't Trump 47 USC 230
Technology & Marketing Law Blog ( Eric Goldman)
This lawsuit related to allegedly defamatory statements that Does made about Hopkins on Topix. Topix naturally invoked 47 USC 230, and the court easily concludes that it qualifies for immunity.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/fraud_allegatio.htm

>>Order: Hopkins v. Doe #1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74316988/Hopkins-v-Doe

>>See also: Complaint
http://www.themountainsvoice.com/exposed/DefamationComplaint.pdf

Shiamili v. Ardor Realty Corp.

UPDATE (6/16/2011)

STATUS: Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss affirmed on June 15, 2011

N.Y.: Blog not liable for defamatory comment: NY high court

Reuters
In a 4-3 ruling, the Court of Appeals held that the Communications Decency Act shields the Real Estate Group of New York Inc., or TREGNY, from liability for defamation and unfair competition against Ardor Realty Corp, because TREGNY was the blog's administrator, not the author of the comments in question.
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP492fbaaa0ed545868e86fbdece67f921.html

--Decision: Shiamili v. Ardor Realty Corp.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/CTAPPS/Decisions/2011/Jun11/105opn11.pdf

See also:

--New York Appellate Court Opinion: Shiamili v. Ardor Realty Corp.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_09403.htm

Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC

STATUS: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted on May 4, 2011

C.D. Cal.: Ripoff Report Gets Another Big 47 USC 230 Win

Technology and Marketing Blog (Eric Goldman)
Keeping alive its truly remarkable winning streak, Ripoff Report got yet another decisive 47 USC 230 victory. This challenge came from Asia Economic Institute (AEI), suing over 6 posts to Ripoff Report from former AEI employees complaining about the work environment. The case raised some eyebrows last summer when the judge gave AEI a chance to plead a RICO claim. That ruling got some plaintiffs excited that a conspiracy theory might finally expose Ripoff Report to liability. No matter, as it turns out, because AEI still lost on summary judgment.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/ripoff_report_g_2.htm

--Opinion: Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54737754/Asia-Economic-Institute-v-Xcentric-Summary-Judgment

See also

--Order Granting In Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment: Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35081047/AEI-v-Xcentric-Summary-Judgment-Ruling

--First Amended Complaint: Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35081088/AEI-v-Xcentric-First-Amended-Complaint

Herman v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC

STATUS: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted on Feb 14, 2011

N.D. Ga.: Ripoff Report Gets Another 47 USC 230 Dismissal

Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
This is a run-of-the-mill lawsuit against the Ripoff Report by an unhappy vendor. Herman is a lawyer (once again, the dreaded lawyer-as-plaintiff) unhappy with a posted report from a client alleging bad service. . . This [granting of summary judgment for defendant Ripoff Report] is a super win for the Ripoff Report and another sign that courts just don't want to hear the plaintiff's arguments (no matter how creative/desperate) trying to put the Ripoff Report on the hook for user postings.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/02/ripoff_report_g_1.htm

--Decision: Herman v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48895149/Herman-v-Xcentric-Dismissal

Blockowicz v. Williams, No. 09-C-3955 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009)

UPDATE (1/5/11)

STATUS: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court on Dec. 27, 2010.

7th Cir.: Websites Don't Have to Remove Nasty Comments

Courthouse News Service
A website's host and manager are not bound by an injunction that ordered the removal of defamatory comments because they were not "in active concert or participation" with those who posted the comments, the 7th Circuit ruled.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/29/32959.htm

--Decision: Blockowicz v. Williams
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1549803.html


Status: Bloggers enjoined after default judgment.
The Blockowicz family brought suit against defendants Joseph David Williams and Michelle Ramey after they allegedly posted defamatory statements on various websites. The defendants defaulted, and on Oct. 6, 2009, the court entered a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to remove their postings from the websites. The plaintiffs, however, were unable to contact the defendants; instead they approached third party providers of the websites. One of these, RipoffReport.com, refused to comply, arguing the court had no jurisdiction over them. The court agreed, finding the provider was not "acting in concert or legally identified" with the enjoined party as required for the court to enforce an injunction against a non-party under F.R.C.P. 65(d). Accordingly, the court denied the Blockowicz's motion to compel.

Links and court documents
Opinion denying motion to compel, filed Dec. 21, 2009
Ripoff Report Not Bound by Takedown Injunction Against User - Blockowicz v. Williams, Technology & Law Marketing Blog, Dec. 22, 2009
Court Allows Libelous Post To Remain Online, MediaPost Blogs, Dec. 24, 2009

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.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/11/ad_networks_can.htm


--Order Denying Motion to Dismiss: Swift v. Zynga
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40920116/Swift-v-Zynga-Motion-to-Dismiss-Denial

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.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/11/16/daily77.html

--Complaint: Swift v. Zynga
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22911486/Swift-v-Zynga-complaint

Article of the Month: Under Pressure Craiglist Removes "Adult Services" Section

In addition to our brief posts on legal actions against bloggers, this blog will also be home to a monthly article exploring one of the cases in more depth. The article will also be published in MLRC's MediaLawLetter, our monthly magazine that covers what's happening in the media world. To see all of the articles from the MediaLawLetter, please consider joining Media Law Resource Center!

Seemingly acquiescing to the demands of state attorneys general, Craigslist has removed the “Adult Services” section of its website. Some supporters maintained hope while the link remained covered by a black bar reading “censored.” However, any fleeting chance of a sustained protest disappeared when the site removed the section entirely, a change it confirmed in recent Congressional testimony.

The move came two weeks after 17 attorneys general sent the site’s founder, CEO, and attorney a letter noting strong concerns that the page provided easy access to prostitution and child sex trafficking. Although the letter was phrased as a request and contained no legal threats, it carried force through its widespread dissemination. The letter was the latest in a two-year effort by state AGs to curtail the website’s alleged facilitation of illicit activities.

Craigslist had already restructured the portion of its page, previously entitled “Erotic Services,” in an effort to reign in the lascivious free-for-all. The site began screening each adult post and requiring an accompanying $10 payment, credit card information, and a verifiable phone number.

Many saw these steps as a boost to public safety, as the increased transparency and high volume on the page allowed law enforcement to intervene when necessary. But AGs, aided by vocal advocacy groups and perhaps feeling the pressure of an election year, found the steps inadequate. Even after the Adult Services section has been removed entirely in the United States, they continue to press for its elimination worldwide.

With their steadfast commitment to pursuing the matter, the AGs have created the impression of unassailable legal strength, yet a close look at the law surrounding this issue reveals that Craigslist fares well in a potential lawsuit.

Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). In other words, barring a certain set of exceptions, Craigslist is not liable for the speech of others simply by providing a forum for communication.

Judicial interpretation of Section 230 has made the provision only stronger with time, and factors that might appear troublesome for Craigslist in reality pose no hurdle. Issues that do not undermine its defense include Craigslist making money from the Adult Services ads, see, e.g., Doe v. GTE, 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003), screening posts to allow some and delete others, see, e.g., Green v. AOL, 318 F.3d 465 (3rd Cir. 2003), and knowing that there was illegal activity taking place. See, e.g., Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2009).

Opponents also could not get around the 230 defense by couching their claims in a different form, such as by claiming that Craigslist aided and abetted prostitution, see GTE, 347 F.3d 655, or was negligent in enforcement. See Doe v. MySpace, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008). The company appears to be on safe ground as long as it avoids actively inducing the creation of illicit content. See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)

Craigslist has already successfully relied on Section 230 to defend its Adult Services area. In a lawsuit brought by an Illinois sheriff against the company for creating a public nuisance by facilitating prostitution, the court determined that none of the site’s actions brought it outside of 230’s protective sphere. See Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009). Craigslist has also successfully invoked immunity when sued for discriminatory postings in its housing section, see Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008), and for injuries caused by the sale of firearms on the site. See Gibson v. Craigslist, 2009 WL 1704355 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2009).

In reality, the AGs probably know their legal stance is a weak one; therefore, they have moved their case to the court of public opinion, where outrage can carry more weight than precedent. The market they are attempting to shut down, meanwhile, now moves underground, to other, anonymous sections of Craigslist and to competing websites.