CDA immunity

Subscribe to CDA immunity via RSS

UPDATE: On December 31, 2019, the Ninth Circuit released an amended opinion in Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., No. 17-17351 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2019). The case also involves competing providers of filtering software and issues concerning the scope of CDA §230(c)(2). In reversing the lower court’s dismissal of claims under the CDA, the Ninth Circuit held that “the phrase ‘otherwise objectionable’ does not include software that the provider finds objectionable for anticompetitive reasons.”

Three recent court decisions affirmed the robust immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. §230(c), for online providers that host third-party content: the Second Circuit’s decision in Herrick v. Grindr LLC, No. 18-396 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2019) (summary order), the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s opinion in Daniel v. Armslist, LLC, No. 2017AP344, 2019 WI 47 (Wis. Apr. 30, 2019),  and the Northern District of California’s decision in P.C. Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., No. 18-05409 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019).

In what is one of the most recent attempts to circumvent the immunity provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA” or “CDA Section 230”), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts made it clear that claims brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836, et seq.) (“DTSA”) are not exempt from the scope of CDA immunity. In Craft Beer Stellar, LLC v. Glassdoor, Inc., No. 18-10510, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178960 (D. Mass. Oct. 17, 2018)), the district court found that, as stated in the DTSA itself, the DTSA is not an “intellectual property” law, and is therefore not excluded from the scope of the immunity provisions that protect online service providers from being treated as a publisher or distributor of third-party content. The ruling is a victory for online providers, affirming a robust interpretation of CDA immunity and representing what is likely the first judicial view on how federal trade secret claims should be treated under CDA Section 230. 

UPDATE: On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court denied review of the California Supreme Court decision.

In a closely-followed dispute, the California Supreme Court vacated a lower court order, based upon a default judgment in a defamation action, which had directed Yelp, Inc. (“Yelp”), a non-party to the original suit, to take down certain consumer reviews posted on its site. (Hassell v. Bird, No. S235968, 2018 WL 3213933 (Cal. July 2, 2018)).  If the plaintiffs had included Yelp as a defendant in the original suit, such a suit would have likely been barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA” or “CDA Section 230”); instead, the plaintiffs adopted a litigation strategy to bypass such legal immunities.  In refusing to allow plaintiff’s “creative pleading” to avoid the CDA, the outcome was a win for online companies and platforms that host user-generated content (“A Case for the Internet,” declared Yelp).

UPDATE: In June 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims in the Gonzalez case, mostly on § 230 grounds. Subsequently, on October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Gonzalez (see our follow-up post).

UPDATE:  In a subsequent opinion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. (See Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 335 F.Supp.3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2018)).

Following the reasoning of several past decisions, a California district court dismissed claims against Google under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. § 2333, for allegedly providing “material support” to ISIS by allowing terrorists to use YouTube  (temporarily, before known accounts are terminated) as a tool to facilitate recruitment and commit terrorism.  (Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 2017 WL 4773366 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017)). The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that Google provided the terrorists with material support by allowing them to sign up for accounts (or regenerate shuttered accounts) and then allegedly serve targeted ads alongside such posted videos.  It ruled that even careful pleadings cannot change the fact that, in substance, plaintiffs’ attempt to hold Google liable as a publisher of the terrorist’s detestable content was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA Section 230” or “CDA”).   

The controversial consumer gripe site, RipoffReport.com, is at it again.  The First Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling that RipoffReport.com was entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) (the “CDA” or “Section 230”) for defamation-related claims based on certain user posts on its site. (Small Justice LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2017 WL 4534395 (1st Cir. Oct. 11, 2017)). This is the latest in a string of victories for RipoffReport.com on that issue. In this case, RipoffReport.com also successfully relied on its website “terms of use” to fend off a novel copyright attack from the plaintiff, the successor-in-interest to the copyright in the user postings at issue.  

UPDATE: In late October 2016, the parties notified the court that they were in discussions to settle the matter and would jointly stipulate to a dismissal of the action without prejudice.  On November 2nd, the court dismissed the action.

Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, also known as the “Communications Decency Act of 1996” or “CDA” was signed into law in February 1996.  The goal of the CDA was to control the exposure of minors to indecent material, but the law’s passage provoked legal challenges and pertinent sections of the Act were subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional limitations on free speech. Yet, one section of the CDA, §230, remained intact and has proven to encourage the growth of web-based, interactive services.

Over the last few years, website operators, search engines and other interactive services have enjoyed a relative stable period of CDA immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) from liability associated with user-generated content.  Despite a few outliers, Section 230 has been generally interpreted by most courts to protect website operators and other “interactive computer services” against claims arising out of third-party content.

However, a recent dispute involving a Snapchat feature known as “Discover” raises new questions under the CDA.  The feature showcases certain interactive “channels” from selected partners who curate content daily.  Last month, a parent of a 14-year old filed a putative class action against Snapchat claiming that her son was exposed to inappropriately racy content, particularly since, as plaintiff alleges, Snapchat does not tailor its feeds for adult and younger users.  (Doe v. Snapchat, Inc., No. 16-04955 (C.D. Cal. filed July 7, 2016)).  The complaint asserts that while Snapchat’s terms of service prohibit users under 13 from signing up for the service, it does not include any warnings about any possible “offensive” content on Snapchat for those under 18, beyond stating some “Community Guidelines” about what types of material users should not post in “Stories” or “Snaps.”